[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 26 (Thursday, February 7, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9001-9003]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02719]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0056; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-48-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation
Propellers

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), DOT.

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation 14SF-7, 14SF-15, and 14SF-23 series
propellers using certain Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation auxiliary
pumps and motors (auxiliary feathering pumps). This proposed AD was
prompted by a report of a propeller not moving into the feathering
position after an engine in-flight shutdown. This proposed AD would
require removing certain serial numbers (S/Ns) of auxiliary feathering
pumps from service. We are proposing this AD to prevent propellers from
failing to move into the feathering position after an engine in-flight
shutdown. Propellers failing to feather can cause high drag on the
propeller, asymmetric thrust, and difficulty of, or impossibility in,
controlling the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 25, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Hamilton Sundstrand Propeller Technical Team, One Hamilton Road, Mail
Stop 1-3-AB43, Windsor Locks, CT 06096-1010; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-
238-7125.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Schwetz, Aerospace Engineer,
Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0056;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-48-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received a report of an engine in-flight shutdown on a
Bombardier DHC-8-400 airplane, where the propeller did not move into
the feathering position. Bombardier was in contact with Hamilton
Sundstrand Corporation inquiring about the auxiliary feathering pump
used on the Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation propellers. Hamilton
Sundstrand Corporation found the auxiliary feathering pump used on
their 14SF series propeller is a similar design as that used on the
DHC-8-400 airplane. The Hamilton Sundstrand investigation revealed some
of their auxiliary feathering pump motors had internal corrosion that
may cause the stator magnets in the pump motor to fail and rotate into
the path of the armature, preventing the pump from feathering the
propeller. This condition, if not corrected, could result in propellers
failing to feather, causing high drag on the propeller, asymmetric
thrust, and difficulty of, or impossibility in, controlling the
airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation Alert Service Bulletin
(ASB) No. 14SF-61-A165, dated September 25, 2012. The ASB lists by S/N
the affected Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation auxiliary feathering
pumps, part number (P/N) 782655-3 (Aerocontrolex P/N 4122-006009) and
provides instructions for getting the pumps modified.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require removing the affected auxiliary
feathering pumps from service.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 284 Hamilton Sundstrand
Corporation 14SF-7, 14SF-15, and 14SF-23 series propellers using
affected auxiliary feathering pumps installed on airplanes of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1.5 hours per
propeller to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is
$85 per hour. Required parts cost is $6,000 per propeller. Based on
these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S.
operators to be $1,740,210.

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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction.
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation: Docket No. FAA-2013-0056;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-48-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 25, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation 14SF-7, 14SF-
15, and 14SF-23 series propellers, using Hamilton Sundstrand
Corporation auxiliary pumps and motors (auxiliary feathering pumps),
part number (P/N) 782655-3 (Aerocontrolex P/N 4122-006009), with the
following serial numbers (S/Ns):
    (1) S/Ns 1 through 365, excluding 95, 108, 122, 177, 193, 278,
285, 293, 297, 310, and 362.
    (2) S/Ns 366 through 710, excluding 387, 405, 423, 481, 506,
574, 584, 596, 632, and 669.
    (3) S/Ns 711 through 1035, excluding 733, 824, 852, and 994.
    (4) S/Ns 1036 through 1475, excluding 1038, 1054, 1081, 1086,
1098, and 1177.
    (5) S/Ns 1476 through 1615, excluding 1523.
    (6) S/Ns 4516 through 4521.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a propeller not moving into
the feathering position after an engine in-flight shutdown. We are
issuing this AD to prevent propellers from failing to move into the
feathering position after an engine in-flight shutdown. Propellers
failing to feather can cause high drag on the propeller, asymmetric
thrust, and difficulty of or impossibility in controlling the
airplane.

(e) Compliance

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

(f) Auxiliary Feathering Pump Removal

    Remove the affected auxiliary feathering pumps from service at
the following:
    (1) Not later than April 30, 2013, for the affected S/Ns listed
in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD.
    (2) Not later than October 31, 2013, for the affected S/Ns
listed in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD.
    (3) Not later than April 30, 2014, for the affected S/Ns listed
in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD.
    (4) Not later than October 31, 2014, for the affected S/Ns
listed in paragraph (c)(4) of this AD.
    (5) Not later than April 30, 2015, for the affected S/Ns listed
in paragraph (c)(5) of this AD.
    (6) Not later than April 30, 2014, for the affected S/Ns listed
in paragraph (c)(6) of this AD.

(g) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install any
auxiliary feathering pump listed as affected in paragraph (c) this
AD, unless the auxiliary feathering pump has been properly modified.
Properly modified auxiliary feathering pumps will have the letter
``M'' following the pump S/N, as described in Hamilton Sundstrand
Corporation Alert Service Bulletin No. 14SF-61-A165, dated September
25, 2012.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19
to make your request.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Michael Schwetz,
Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Hamilton Sundstrand Propeller Technical Team, One Hamilton Road,
Mail Stop 1-3-AB43, Windsor Locks, CT 06096-1010; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
781-238-7125.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on January 29, 2013.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Assistant Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-02719 Filed 2-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


EPA Registration Division contact: Susan Lewis,<PHONE_NUMBER>

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)

5E8349

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (5E8349) from IR-4, 500 College
Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, New Jersey, 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 by establishing a tolerance
for residues of fluazinam, including its metabolites and degradates, in
or on the raw agricultural commodity mayhaw at 2.0 parts per million
(ppm), cabbage at 3.0 ppm, cucurbit vegetables, squash/cucumber subgroup
9B at 0.05 ppm, vegetable, brassica leafy, group 5, except cabbage at
0.01 ppm, and vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.02 ppm.
Upon approval of the aforementioned tolerances, IR-4 requests to remove
the established tolerances for fluazinam on vegetable, brassica leafy,
group 5 of 0.01 ppm and potato at 0.02 ppm.  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.

A. Residue Chemistry

Plant metabolism.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The residue of concern is best
defined as the parent, fluazinam in most crops and as the parent,
fluazinam and its metabolite, AMGT, in fruit crops (grape and
blueberry).    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The metabolism of fluazinam in plants
(potatoes, peanuts, apples and wine grapes) is adequately understood for
the purposes of these tolerances.  The metabolism of fluazinam in peanut
and potato involves initial reduction of the nitro groups, hydrolysis of
the trifluoromethyl group as well as replacement of chlorine by
glutathione with subsequent reactions along the glutathione pathway.
Following replacement of the deactivating NO2 and Cl groups with
activating groups such as OH, NH2 and sulfhydryl, ring cleavage occurs.
Parent fluazinam is then rapidly degraded to form CO2 and carbon
fragments which are incorporated into natural products such as glucose,
fructose, sucrose, oils and protein.  Thus, parent fluazinam is either
not found or barely detectable in peanuts and potatoes.  Fluazinam
parent was the major identifiable residue in both the grape and apple
metabolism studies.  However, minor levels of AMGT (less than 5% of the
total radioactive residue) were also formed in grapes and apples.  In
grape and apple metabolism studies, following reduction of the nitro
groups and replacement of chlorine with a sulfur containing side-chain
such as glutathione (as occurred in peanuts and potatoes), glucose is
attached to the thiolactic acid conjugate of AMPA to form the metabolite
known as AMGT.  This metabolite was not found in   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
the peanut or potatoes metabolism studies.  It is analogous to the
cysteine conjugate of AMPA found in rats.  Identifiable residues in
plant metabolism studies either closely resemble fluazinam in structure
or are the result of re-incorporation of the fluazinam carbon pool into
natural products.

    Ruminant and poultry metabolism studies demonstrated that the
transmittal of residues from the feed of goats and hens through to meat,
milk, and eggs was low.  Total 14C residues were below 1 ppm in all
tissues, milk and eggs.  Identifiable residues were less than 2% of the
administered dose in all matrices, except for chicken fat and liver.
The major metabolite found in animal tissues and milk were DAPA, AMPA,
and their sulfamate conjugates.  Parent Fluazinam was only detected in
very small amounts.

	2. Analytical method. An analytical method using LC-MS/MS for the
determination of fluazinam and AMGT residues on cabbage, squash and
cucumbers has been developed and validated.  The method involves solvent
extraction followed by liquid-liquid partitioning and concentration
prior to a final purification.  The method has been successfully
validated by an independent laboratory using peanut nutmeat as the
matrix.  The limit of quantitation (LOQ) of the method is 0.01 ppm for
both fluazinam and AMGT in these crops.

	3. Magnitude of residues. Cabbage. A total of 8 field trials were
conducted on cabbage.  Treatment 2 of each field site consisted of one
application applied as 0.055 lb. a.i./1000 plants in a plant base drench
at the time of transplanting followed by six (6) foliar applications at
the target rate of approximately 0.5 lb. a.i./A, applied at 7 (+1) day
intervals.  Cabbages were harvested approximately 7 days after the last
application.   One decline trial was included with sampling at 0, 3, 7,
9, 14 and 21 days after the last application.  The results show that the
maximum Fluazinam residue in cabbage following a total foliar
application of approximately 3 lb. a.i./A/season with an average PHI of
7 days, was 1.7 ppm.  The mean fluazinam residue was 0.64 ppm. Residues
generally declined over time.  Only one residue of AMGT above the LOQ
(0.01 ppm) at 0.011 ppm was observed.

Squash. A total of 6 field trials were conducted on summer squash.
Treatment 2 of each field site consisted of one soil directed and four
(4) foliar applications at the target rate of approximately 0.78 lb.
a.i./A, applied at 7 (+1) day intervals.  Squash were harvested 6 to 7
days after the last application.  The results show that the maximum
Fluazinam residue in summer squash following a total application of
approximately 3.9 lb a.i./A/season with an average PHI of 7 days, was
0.016 ppm.  The mean fluazinam residue was 0.011 ppm.  No residues of
AMGT above the LOQ of 0.01 ppm were observed in any sample.

Cucumber.  A total of 6 field trials were conducted on cucumbers.
Treatment 2 of each field site consisted of one soil directed at
transplanting and four (4) foliar applications at the target rate of
approximately 0.78 lb. a.i./A, applied at 7 (+2) day intervals, for a
total of 3.9 lb. a.i./A.  (Two sites received more than the target
amount: 4.6 and 5.7 lb. a.i./A.)  Cucumbers were harvested 6 to 7 days
after the last application.  The results show that the maximum Fluazinam
residue in cucumbers following a total application of approximately 3.9
– 5.7 lb a.i./A/season with an average PHI of 7 days, was 0.032 ppm.
The mean fluazinam residue was 0.013 ppm.  No residues of AMGT above the
LOQ of 0.01 ppm were observed in any sample.

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  A battery of acute toxicity studies was conducted
which placed technical fluazinam in Toxicity Category IV for acute oral
LD50 and dermal irritation, and Category III for dermal LD50, inhalation
LC50 and eye irritation.  Technical fluazinam showed potential for
dermal sensitization.  In an acute neurotoxicity study, the NOAEL for
neurotoxicity was 2000 mg/kg bw (the highest dose tested) and the NOAEL
for systemic effects was 50 mg/kg bw.

	2. Genotoxicty. A battery of tests has been conducted to assess the
genotoxic potential of technical fluazinam.  Assays conducted included
two gene mutation tests in bacteria, a chromosomal aberration test in
mammalian cells, a mouse micronucleus test and a DNA repair test in
bacteria.  Technical fluazinam did not elicit a genotoxic response in
any of the studies conducted.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. In a two-generation
reproductive toxicity study, the NOAEL for reproductive effects was 100
ppm (10.6 mg/kg bw/day).  The NOAEL for parental toxicity was 20 ppm
(1.9 mg/kg bw/day).

    In a rat developmental study, there were no developmental effects
observed at non-maternally toxic doses.  The developmental NOAEL was 50
mg/kg bw/day and the LOAEL was 250 mg/kg bw/day, based upon decreased
mean fetal body weight and other evidence suggestive of delayed fetal
development related to maternal toxicity. The maternal NOAEL was shown
to be 50 mg/kg bw/day.

    In a rabbit developmental study, there were no developmental effects
observed at non-maternally toxic doses.  The developmental NOAEL was 7
mg/kg bw/day and the LOAEL was 12 mg/kg bw/day, based on increased
incidence of total litter loss and possible slightly increased
incidences of fetal findings at this dose.  It was concluded that the
maternal NOAEL was 4 mg/kg bw/day.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. The NOAEL for the 13-week feeding study in rats
was 50 ppm (3.8 mg/kg bw/day in males, 4.3 mg/kg bw/day in females).
The LOAEL was 500 ppm (38 mg/kg bw/day in males, 44 mg/kg bw/day in
females), based on periacinar hepatocellular hypertrophy and sinusoidal
chronic inflammation in males, increased liver weights in males and
increased lung weights in females.

    In a 13-week dog study, the NOAEL was 10 mg/kg bw/day.  The LOAEL
was 100 mg/kg bw/day, based on ocular change observed
ophthalmoscopically and liver effects consisting of increased relative
liver to body weight, bile duct hyperplasia with or without
cholangiofibrosis and increased plasma phosphatase levels.

    In a 21-day dermal study, the NOAEL for systemic effects was 10
mg/kg bw/day.  The LOAEL was 100 mg/kg bw/day, based on hepatocelluar
hypertrophy and increases in AST and cholesterol levels.

    In a subchronic neurotoxicity study, no effects considered to be
indicative of neurotoxicity were observed at the highest dose tested,
3000 ppm (233 mg/kg bw/day in males, 280 mg/kg bw/day in females).  The
NOAEL for systemic toxicity (body weight differences) was 1000 ppm (74
mg/kg bw/day).

    In a developmental neurotoxicity study in rats, fluazinam was
administered by gavage to female rats from Day 6 after mating to Day 20
of lactation and additionally to their offspring from Day 7 of age to
Day 20 or 21 of age.  The author concluded that the maternal NOAEL was 2
mg/kg bw/day based on reduced body weights and lower food intake.  No
effects were seen on the microscopic structure of the nervous system of
the dams at any dose level (maximum dose of 50 mg/kg bw/day).  The NOAEL
for behavior and nervous system of the dams was >50 mg/kg bw/day, the
highest dose tested.  No adverse effect of treatment at any dose level
was seen on number of implantations, litter size or offspring survival.
Signs of general toxicity in the offspring were evident based on lower
Day 1 body weights and lower weight gains at 10 and 50 mg/kg bw/day
through weaning.  The NOAEL for general toxicity to offspring was 2
mg/kg bw/day.  There was no evidence of developmental neurotoxicity in
the offspring.  The NOAEL for the functional and morphological
development of the nervous system in the offspring was >50 mg/kg bw/day,
the highest dose tested.  There was no increased sensitivity of the
fetus or young rat pups to fluazinam as compared to the dams.

	5. Chronic toxicity. Fluazinam was not carcinogenic in rats.  A NOAEL
of 10 ppm (Males: 0.38 mg/kg bw/day; Females: 0.47 mg/kg bw/day) of
fluazinam was established based on the following effects at 1000 and/or
100 ppm: lower food consumption and efficiency of food utilization,
slight anemia, elevated cholesterol, increased liver weights, an
increased number of macroscopic liver and testes lesions and an
increased incidence of microscopically observed lung, liver, pancreas,
lymph node and testes lesions.

    An additional study was conducted to further define the NOAEL for
long-term effects in the rat.  In the second study, a NOAEL of 50 ppm
(2.2 mg/kg bw/day) was established based on liver and testes effects.

    Two long-term feeding studies were conducted in mice.  In the first,
the NOAEL for all effects was 10 ppm (Males: 1.1 mg/kg bw/day; Females:
1.2 mg/kg bw/day) and the LOAEL was 100 ppm (Males: 10.7 mg/kg bw/day;
Females: 11.7 mg/kg bw/day) based on the treatment-related effects
observed in the liver.

    A second oncogenicity study in mice was conducted at 1000, 3000 and
7000 ppm to ensure that an MTD dose was studied.  Findings included
increased female mortality, reduced body weight gains, increased brain
weights and/or liver weights.  An impurity in the test material used in
this study resulted in vacuolation of the white matter of the brain and
cervical spinal cord in treated animals. A statistically significant
higher incidence of hepatocellular adenomas was observed in the 3000 ppm
dose males.  Hepatocellular adenomas are common tumors in male mice.
There was no dose relationship in the induction of the adenoma and no
increase in hepatocellular carcinomas.  It was concluded that fluazinam
is not carcinogenic in the mouse.

    In a chronic dog study, the NOAEL was determined to be 1 mg/kg
bw/day.  The LOAEL was 10 mg/kg bw/day based on generalized, nonspecific
toxicity.  No ocular effects were observed ophthalmoscopally at any dose
in this study.

	6. Animal metabolism. After an oral dose of fluazinam the median peak
time for blood concentration of radiolabel activity for both sexes was 6
hours.  The major route of excretion was the feces with urine
contributing as a minor route. Less than 1% of the administered dose was
found in the terminated animals.  The highest concentration in tissues
was found in the liver.  There were no major differences related to sex
or dose level in the findings.  It was concluded that fluazinam is
metabolized by both reduction and glutathione and glucuronide
conjugation and further metabolism.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. The same metabolic processes occur in plants
and animals but metabolism in plants is more extensive than in animals.
All of the major identified metabolites in both plants and animals
retain the phenylpyridinylamine structure.  Many of the metabolites
resulting from fluazinam are similar in plants and animals and,
therefore, have already been evaluated toxicologically.

    Because of the rapid and complete elimination (in animals) and
re-incorporation (in plants) of fluazinam, the toxicity of metabolites
is expected to be similar to but lower than the toxicity of the parent
compound.  The residue of concern is parent fluazinam only in most crops
and parent fluazinam plus its minor metabolite AMGT on/in fruit crops
such as grape and blueberry.

	8. Endocrine disruption. The toxicological profile of fluazinam shows
no evidence of physiological effects characteristic of the disruption of
the hormone estrogen in mammalian chronic studies or in mammalian or
avian reproduction studies.   It is therefore considered that there is
an adequate level of safety over the reference dose for possible
endocrine effects and that an additional safety factor for possible
endocrine effects is not warranted.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. Potential dietary exposures from food were
estimated using the proposed tolerances for all crops, using the Dietary
Exposure Evaluation Model-Food Consumption Intake Database
(DEEM-FCIDTM)/Calendex Version 4.02/10.00 Release and percent crop
treated of 100%.  The following raw agricultural commodities were
included: apple; carrot; brassica (cole) leafy vegetables (Group 5)
including turnip greens and cabbage at the proposed increased tolerance
level; bean (Groups 6A, 6B and 6C); bushberry (Group 13-07B); ginseng;
head lettuce; leaf lettuce; bulb onion (Crop 3-07A); peanut; vegetable,
tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C; pepper/eggplant subgroup 8-10B;
cucurbit vegetables, melon subgroup 9A and squash/cucumber subgroup 9B;
soybeans; imported wine grapes and sherry; and resulting secondary
residues in meat and milk.  For acute dietary exposure, the acute
population adjusted dose (aPAD) was based on the NOAEL of 50 mg/kg
bw/day from an acute rat neurotoxicity study.   For females 13-49 years
of age, the NOAEL of 7 mg/kg bw/day from the rabbit developmental
toxicity study was used for acute dietary exposure.  For chronic dietary
exposure, the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) was based on the
NOAEL from the mouse carcinogenicity study (1.1 mg/kg bw/day).  An
uncertainty factor of 100 was used in both cases since the results of a
DNT study confirmed there was no increased sensitivity of the fetus or
young rat pups to fluazinam as compared to the dams and the FQPA
uncertainty factor could be reduced to one (1).

	i. Food. Acute Risk Tier 1 acute dietary exposure analyses were
conducted for fluazinam to determine the exposure contribution of the
above mentioned commodities to the diet and to ascertain the acute risk
potential.  The estimates were based on: proposed tolerance level
residues for all the crops; apple, peanut and potato processing studies;
market share assumptions of 100% crop treated; screening-level acute
EDWC of 218 ppb for water; and consumption data from NHANES/WWEIA
(2005-6, 2007-8, and 2009-10 cycles) continuing survey of food intake.

    Even using all of the worst-case exposure scenarios listed above,
the Tier 1 95th percentile acute dietary exposure (per capita) from food
and drinking water for the U.S. population was estimated to be 0.026340
mg/kg bw/day or 5.27% of the aPAD. The highest acute exposure estimate
(95th percentile) was observed in the females 13-49 yrs. subpopulation:
0.019739 mg/kg bw/day.  This corresponds to 28.2% of the aPAD.

    Chronic Risk Tier 1 dietary exposure analyses were conducted for
fluazinam to determine the exposure contribution of the above mentioned
commodities to the diet and to ascertain the chronic risk potential. The
estimates were based on: proposed tolerance level residues for all the
crops; apple, peanut and potato processing studies; market share
assumptions of 100% crop treated; screening-level chronic EDWC of 37
ppb; and consumption data from NHANES/WWEIA (2005-6, 2007-8, and 2009-10
cycles) continuing survey of food intake.

    Even using all of the worst-case exposure scenarios listed above,
the Tier 1 chronic dietary exposure estimates resulted in an estimated
exposure for the U.S. population of 0.002375 mg/kg bw/day.  This
exposure corresponds to 21.6% of the cPAD of 0.011mg/kg bw/day.  The
highest exposure estimate was calculated for the non-nursing infants
population subgroup.  This exposure was determined to be 0.007247 mg/kg
bw/day (65.9% of the cPAD) most of which was due to the water
contribution.

    It can be concluded that acute or long-term dietary exposure to
fluazinam through residues on treated apple, carrot, brassica (cole)
leafy vegetables (Group 5) including turnip greens, bean (Groups 6A, 6B
and 6C), bushberry (Group 13-07B), ginseng, head lettuce, leaf lettuce,
bulb onion (Crop 3-07A), peanut, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C,
pepper/eggplant subgroup 8-10B,  cucurbit vegetables, melon subgroup 9A
and squash/cucumber subgroup 9B, soybeans, imported wine grapes and
sherry and resulting secondary residues in meat and milk should not be
of cause for concern.

	ii. Drinking water. Since fluazinam is intended for application
outdoors to field grown crops, the potential exists for parent and/or
metabolites to reach ground or surface water that may be used for
drinking water.  The potential estimated drinking water concentrations
(EDWCs) associated with the application of fluazinam to cabbage, mayhaw,
squash/cucumber subgroup 9B, or tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C, is less
than the maximum values estimated for turf.  Thus, the more conservative
screening-level acute EDWC (218 ppb) and chronic EDWC (37 ppb) for turf
were incorporated into the DEEM-FCID model to estimate dietary exposure.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. A registration for the use of fluazinam on
golf courses has been approved.  Applications are to be made by golf
course workers only, thus no residential handler exposure is expected.
However, post-application dermal exposure from contact with the treated
turf on golf courses may occur.  Thus, post-application dermal exposure
was calculated for adults and for youth playing golf, using the general
US population subgroup and youth, 13-19 years subgroup.   The Margins of
Exposure (MOE) for both the adults (21,800) and the youth (14,300) were
well above the acceptable MOE of 100.

D. Cumulative Effects

	Fluazinam is a phenylpyridinylamine fungicide.   Since there are no
other members of this class of fungicides, it is considered unlikely
that fluazinam would have a common mechanism of toxicity with any other
pesticide in use at this time.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. Dietary and post-application dermal exposure from
recreational contact with treated turf on golf courses will be the
routes of exposure to the U.S. population.  Ample margins of safety have
been demonstrated for both situations. For the general U.S. population,
the chronic aggregate risk assessment is based on exposure from food and
drinking water only, since no residential uses exist.  As noted above,
the chronic dietary exposure to fluazinam represents 21.6% of the cPAD
for the overall U.S. population, using the conservative Tier I
assumptions. A cancer dietary assessment was not conducted because this
product has been classified as “suggestive evidence of
carcinogenicity, but not sufficient to assess human carcinogenic
potential.”

An acute aggregate risk assessment is required for the general
population and for the subgroup of females 13-49 years old.  For both of
these populations, the acute dietary (food and drinking water) risk
assessment represents acute aggregate risk since the dietary route alone
is relevant for acute exposure and risk assessment. As noted above, the
acute dietary exposure to fluazinam is estimated to be 5.27% of the aPAD
for the overall U.S. population, and 28.2% of the aPAD for the subgroup
of females 13-49 years old. These values were presented above and are
below the Agency’s level of concern.

Short-term and intermediate-term aggregate risks include chronic dietary
and short-term residential sources of exposure. Since Fluazinam is
proposed for use on golf courses there is potential for post-application
exposure to adults and youths from playing golf.  The US general
population was chosen as the representative short-term population for
adults, while the dietary subpopulation youths aged 13 to 19 was chosen
to match with the youth golfer residential exposure.  The dietary (food
and drinking water) exposure was based on the Tier I chronic exposure
assessment as noted above but converted to an MOE.  This was aggregated
with the appropriate post-application residential golfer MOE to yield
the following aggregate short/intermediate-term MOEs: US general
population MOE = 1811; youths, 13-19 = 2779.  These aggregate risks are
well above 100 for all populations, indicating acceptable risks for both
adults and youth.

Based on this information, it can be concluded that there is reasonable
certainty that no harm will result from acute, short/intermediate term
or chronic exposure to fluazinam.

	2. Infants and children. Data from developmental toxicity studies in
the rat and rabbit, a 2-generation reproduction study and a
developmental neurotoxicity study were considered.  These studies, that
were described earlier, demonstrated no increased sensitivity of rats or
rabbits to in utero or gavage exposure of pups to fluazinam.  In
addition, the multigeneration reproductive toxicity study did not
identify any increased sensitivity of rats to in utero or postnatal
exposure.  For all four studies, parental NOAELs were lower than or
equivalent to the developmental or offspring NOAELs.  It is concluded
that the standard margin of safety will protect the safety of infants
and children and that an additional FQPA safety factor is not warranted.

    The dietary exposure of fluazinam to infants and children is
estimated to be less than any level of concern. The proposed tolerances
plus drinking water input will utilize 20.3% of the aPAD for the
“Children (1-2 years)” subgroup, and 53.6% of the cPAD for the
“Children (1-2 years)” subgroup.  The non-nursing infants population
subgroup utilizes 65.9% of the cPAD.  (These were the most sensitive
infant/child subgroups.) Thus, it can be concluded that there is
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children
from acute or chronic exposure to fluazinam.

F. International Tolerances

	There are presently no Codex maximum residue levels (MRLs) established
for residues of fluazinam on any crop.  The Canadian established MRLs
for brassicas (crop group 5A & 5B), bushberries (crop group 13B), dry
beans, lima beans, snap beans, and the Mexican MRLs for beans and
potatoes are similar to the tolerances established for these crops in
the USA.

 PAGE

 PAGE   8


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 163 (Thursday, August 22, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52083]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20379]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0267; Airspace Docket No. 13-ASW-2]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Fort Polk, LA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace at Fort Polk, LA.
Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Area
Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Polk Army
Airfield (AAF). The airport's geographic coordinates are also adjusted.
This action enhances the safety and management of Instrument Flight
Rule (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, December 12, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On April 30, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace for the
Fort Polk, LA, area, creating additional controlled airspace at Polk
AAF (77 FR 25228) Docket No. FAA-2013-0267. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E
airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface to accommodate new standard instrument approach
procedures at Polk AAF, Fort Polk, LA. A small segment extends from the
current 7.6-mile radius of the airport to 20.2 miles north of the
airport to provide adequate controlled airspace for the safety and
management of IFR operations at the airport. Geographic coordinates are
also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Polk AAF, Fort Polk, LA.

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface

* * * * *

ASW LA E5 Fort Polk, LA [Amended]

Fort Polk, Polk AAF, LA
    (Lat. 31[deg]02'41'' N., long. 93[deg]11'30'' W.)
Polk VORTAC
    (Lat. 31[deg]06'42'' N., long. 93[deg]13'04'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.6-mile radius of Polk AAF, and within 8 miles west and 4
miles east of each side of the 340[deg] radial from the Polk VORTAC
extending from the 7.6-mile radius to 20.2 miles north of the
airport, excluding that airspace within restricted areas R-3803A, R-
3804A, and R-3804B.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 12, 2013.
David P. Medina,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-20379 Filed 8-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 61 (Thursday, March 29, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13416-13417]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06279]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2018-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8523]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates
listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not
occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying
the current participation status of a community can be obtained from
FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community-status-book.

DATES: The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is
the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third column of the following
tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact Adrienne L. Sheldon, PE, CFM, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer
local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new
construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale
of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts
adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that
statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR
part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the
effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of
these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of
legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is
published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities
will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of
NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such
communities will be published in the Federal Register.
    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the
fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance
(except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be
provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified
SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for
more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having
flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against
certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the
communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The
Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5
U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities
listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has determined that the
community suspension(s) included in this rule is a non-discretionary
action and therefore the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) does not apply.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless
an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no
longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective
date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities
unless remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30,

1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.
    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Effective date
                                                authorization/
                                  Community     cancellation of    Current effective map   Date certain Federal
      State and location             No.         sale of flood             date            assistance no longer
                                                 insurance in                               available in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Region VII

Iowa:
    Corwith, City of, Hancock         190407  October 11, 1989,   April 4, 2018.........  April 4, 2018.
     County.                                   Emerg; July 1,
                                               1991, Reg; April
                                               4, 2018, Susp
    Forest City, City of,             190283  June 18, 1975,      ......do *............   Do.
     Hancock and Winnebago                     Emerg; January 2,
     Counties.                                 1981, Reg; April
                                               4, 2018, Susp
    Garner, City of, Hancock          190581  N/A, Emerg; March   ......do *............   Do.
     County.                                   24, 2015, Reg;
                                               April 4, 2018,
                                               Susp
    Hancock County,                   190873  June 16, 1995,      ......do *............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; December
                                               2, 2003, Reg;
                                               April 4, 2018,
                                               Susp
    Woden, City of, Hancock           190410  July 19, 2012,      ......do *............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; N/A, Reg;
                                               April 4, 2018,
                                               Susp

          Region VIII

Colorado:
    Brush, City of, Morgan            080130  June 18, 1975,      ......do *............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; December
                                               1, 1977, Reg;
                                               April 4, 2018,
                                               Susp
    Fort Morgan, City of,             080131  February 4, 1982,   ......do *............   Do.
     Morgan County.                            Emerg; February
                                               5, 1986, Reg;
                                               April 4, 2018,
                                               Susp
    Morgan County,                    080129  April 22, 1980,     ......do *............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; September
                                               29, 1989, Reg;
                                               April 4, 2018,
                                               Susp

           Region IX

California:
    Thousand Oaks, City of,           060422  November 13, 1970,  ......do *............   Do.
     Ventura County.                           Emerg; September
                                               29, 1978, Reg;
                                               April 4, 2018,
                                               Susp
    Ventura County,                   060413  September 18,       ......do *............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     1970, Emerg;
                                               October 31, 1985,
                                               Reg; April 4,
                                               2018, Susp
    Westlake Village, City of,        060744  N/A, Emerg;         April 4, 2018.........  April 4, 2018.
     Los Angeles and Ventura                   October 1, 1992,
     Counties.                                 Reg; April 4,
                                               2018, Susp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* do = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

    Dated: March 14, 2018.
Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-06279 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: July 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 136)]
[Notices]
[Page 40559-40560]
[DOCID:fr15jy08-34]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Project No. P-12589-001]

Public Service Company of Colorado; Notice of Application
Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Establishing Procedural
Schedule for Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

July 8, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: P-12589-001.
    c. Date Filed: June 25, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    e. Name of Project: Tacoma Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The existing project is located on Cascade Creek,
Little Cascade Creek and Elbert Creek in La Plata and San Juan
Counties, Colorado. The Tacoma Project occupies 221 acres of the San
Juan National Forest.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Randy Rhodes, Public Service Company of
Colorado, 4653 Table Mountain Drive, Golden Colorado 80403; telephone
(720) 497-2123.
    i. FERC Contact: David Turner<PHONE_NUMBER> or via e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    k. Project Description: The existing project consists of the
following: (1) A 30-foot-long, 10-foot-high concrete diversion dam on
Cascade Creek; (2) a 4,200-foot-long, 10-foot-diameter, semi-circular,
elevated wooden flume; (3) a 1,400-foot-long, 60-inch-diameter steel
inverted siphon; (4) a 14,500-foot-long, 64-inch-diameter steel
pipeline; (5) the open channel of Little Cascade Creek; (6) a 0.5-mile-
long, 5-foot-deep lake (Columbine Lake) formed by a small, partially
breached timber dam on Little Cascade Creek; (7) the open channel of
Little Cascade Creek downstream of Columbine Lake; (8) the 4-acre
Aspaas Lake; (9) a 274-foot-long, 27-foot-high, earth-filled Aspaas
dam; (10) a 14-foot-wide, rock-cut open diversion channel that diverts
flow from Aspaas Lake to Electra Lake; (11) the 800-acre Electra Lake;
(12) a 140-foot-long, 20-foot-high, rock-filled, timber crib dam
(Stagecoach dam) serving as the spillway for Electra Lake; (13) a
1,270-foot-long, 62-foot-high, rock-filled dam (Terminal dam), with an
impermeable asphalt membrane on the upstream face and an asphalt-paved
crest; (14) a 429-foot-long, 54-inch-diameter steel pipe intake under
the Terminal dam that leads project flows from Electra Lake to a valve
vault; (15) the valve vault; (16) a 9,590-foot-long, 66-inch-diameter
welded steel penstock, with a 12-foot-diameter, 116-foot-high surge
tank; (17) a bifurcated penstock structure that diverts flow to a
2,050-foot-long, 30-inch-diameter welded steel penstock that enters the
powerhouse and a 2,050-foot-long, 54-inch diameter welded steel
penstock that branches to a 46-inch diameter pipe immediately prior to
entering the power house; (18) a 108-foot-long, 64-foot-wide, steel
frame, brick powerhouse containing three generating units with a total
installed capacity of 8 megawatts (MW); (19) a 44 kV substation
adjacent to the powerhouse; and (20) appurtenant facilities. The
project is operated both as a base-load plant and a peaking plant
depending on the time of the year. The applicant proposes the following
changes to project facilities: (1) project boundary modifications to
reflect lands needed for project operations; (2) rehabilitation and
addition of the 6-foot-high Canyon Creek diversion to supply potable
water, emergency cooling water, and fire protection; (3) the addition
of 4 MW turbine-generator (Unit 4); and (4) several recreation and
environmental measures.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/
esubscribenow.htm to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule
may be made as appropriate. For example, issuance of the Ready for
Environmental Analysis Notice is based on the assumption that there
will be no additional information.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Milestone                               Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Deficiency Determination Letter    July 2008.
 and Issuance of Additional Information
 Requests (AIRs).
Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready for       August 2008.
 Environmental Analysis.
Filing of Interventions, Recommendations,      October 2008.
 Terms and Conditions, and Fishway
 Prescriptions.
Reply Comments Due...........................  December 2008.
Issuance of Draft EA.........................  January 2009.
Comments on Draft EA Due.....................  February 2009.
Filing of Modified Terms and Conditions......  April 2009.
Issuance of Final EA.........................  July 2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-16049 Filed 7-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 86 (Friday, May 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 21297]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09125]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Ninety Eighth RTCA SC-159 Navigation Equipment Using the Global
Positioning System Plenary

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

ACTION: Ninety Eighth RTCA SC-159 Navigation Equipment Using the Global
Positioning System Plenary.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of Ninety Eighth RTCA SC-159 Navigation Equipment Using the
Global Positioning System Plenary.

DATES: The meeting will be held May 11, 2017, 09:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th
Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036. Virtual participation is
also allowed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Morrison at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite
910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at
(202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the Ninety Eighth RTCA SC-159 Navigation
Equipment Using the Global Positioning System Plenary. The agenda will
include the following:

Thursday May 11, 2017, 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

1. Introductory Remarks: Co-chairs, RTCA and DFO Statement
2. Review and Approve Previous Meeting Summaries
    a. Ninety-Sixth Meeting held October, 2016, RTCA Paper No. 028-17/
SC159-1057
    b. Ninety-Seventh Meeting held December, 2016, RTCA Paper No. 029-
17/SC159-1058
3. Final Review and Comment (FRAC) consideration for document approval
(a, b, d) or to open new FRAC (c, e)
    a. DO-253C (LAAS MOPS)
    b. DO-246D (LAAS ICD)
    c. DO-235C (Radio Frequency Interference)
    d. GPS/GLONASS L1 MOPS
    e. L1/L5 antenna MOPS
4. Action Item Review
5. Other Business
6. Date and Place of Next Meeting
7. Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 2, 2017.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17,
NextGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-09125 Filed 5-4-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 17, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15071-15073]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04856]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0103; FRL-10006-20-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West
Virginia. Whenever new or revised national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS or standards) are promulgated, the Clean Air Act (CAA)
requires states to make an initial SIP submission to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. This
submission is required to address basic program elements, including,
but not limited to, regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal
authority, and adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and
maintenance of the standards. This type of SIP revision is commonly
referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP and elements addressed in such
a submission are referred to as infrastructure requirements. West
Virginia made a submittal addressing most of the infrastructure
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS and later supplemented the
submittal to address the interstate transport elements; EPA is not
acting on the interstate transport elements at this time. EPA is
approving these revisions in accordance with the requirements of the
CAA.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0103. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Schulingkamp, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2021. Mr. Schulingkamp can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On December 18, 2019 (84 FR 69349), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of West Virginia. In the NPRM,
EPA proposed approval of most portions of West Virginia's
infrastructure SIP revision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The State
submitted the infrastructure SIP on September 14, 2018 through the
Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP); this State later
supplemented this submission on February 4, 2019 to address the
interstate transport elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Additional background on West Virginia's submittal, infrastructure
SIPs, and the ozone NAAQS can be found in the NPRM.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    West Virginia's September 14, 2018 infrastructure SIP submittal
addressed the following infrastructure elements, or portions thereof,
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), D(i)(II),
D(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). The SIP submittal
did not address the portion of element (C) which pertains to
nonattainment new source review requirements, or element (I) which
pertains to the nonattainment requirements of part D, title I of the
CAA, because states are not required to address these elements by the
3-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1), and will be addressed
in a separate process.
    EPA has analyzed the SIP submission and is making a determination
that the submittal meets the requirements of the identified elements. A
detailed summary of EPA's review and rationale for approving West
Virginia's submittal may be found in the technical support

document (TSD) for the NPRM which is available online at
www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0103. Other
specific requirements and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are
explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.

III. Response to Comments

    EPA received three sets of anonymous comments in response to the
NPRM. Two of the comments were difficult to interpret but did not
appear to support EPA's proposed approval. EPA's best effort to
interpret and respond to these two comments are also below.
    Comment 1: The first commenter disagreed with EPA's proposed action
with regard to whether the State has adequate resources. The commenter
stated that EPA must review financial records and determine whether the
State has adequate funding and if the funding is capable of sustaining
the number of employees on the State's staff.
    Response 1: EPA disagrees with the comment. The comment does not
provide any specific facts or analysis to support the concern about
insufficient resources. An audit of the State's financial records is
not required in order for EPA to determine that a state has met the
requirements of CAA section 110(a). The CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i)
requires that the State provide to EPA ``necessary assurances'' that it
will have adequate funding and personnel to implement the relevant
NAAQS. In accordance with CAA section 110(a)(2)(E), which requires that
the State provide necessary assurances that it has adequate resources
and personnel, EPA has concluded that the State has provided the
necessary assurances of adequate resources and personnel in accordance
with CAA section 110(a)(2)(E), as explained in the TSD included in the
docket for this rulemaking action.
    For example, West Virginia described in its submission that under
State statutory authority it ``employs adequate personnel and retains
specialists under W.Va. Code section 22-5-4(a)(8) that are `necessary,
incident or convenient' to accomplish its statutory mandate to carry
out'' the West Virginia SIP, and currently maintains a staff of
approximately 80 full time employees. West Virginia does not anticipate
any changes in necessary resources for the five years following this
submission. West Virginia indicates that the State has regulatory legal
authority to establish fees to cover permitting costs beyond those
already covered by its federally approved Title V operating permit
program under 45CSR22, and that it receives revenue from fines and
enforcement settlements (Air Pollution Control Fund). West Virginia
also receives federal funds under CAA section 103 (Research,
investigation, training, and other activities) and section 105 (Grants
for support of air pollution planning and control programs), 42 U.S.C.
7403 and 7405. The State air pollution control programs also receive
state general fund appropriations. Therefore, EPA has determined that
West Virginia has provided necessary assurances that it has sufficient
funding and personnel to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    Comment 2: The second comment stated that EPA should disapprove
West Virginia's infrastructure SIP submission because ``the committee's
position was supported by the oil and gas industry.'' The comment also
suggested ``[t]he SIP could be suspended because of its non-
enforcement.'' The comment concluded by saying ``[t]he infrastructure
SIP should be disapproved immediately to stop it being used to bully
corporations and public officials and allow another bill to be passed
without the new part of the bill being gutted!''
    Response 2: EPA disagrees with the comment. The commenter did not
provide any information beyond its assertion in the comment as to why
EPA should disapprove West Virginia's infrastructure SIP submission.
The comment also failed to identify any part of the West Virginia SIP
that the State is not enforcing. The Administrative Procedures Act does
not require that EPA change its decision based on ``comments consisting
of little more than assertions that in the opinions of the commenters
the agency got it wrong,'' when submitted without supporting data.
International Fabricare Institute v. E.P.A., 972 F.2d 384 (D.C. Cir.
1992). EPA's review of the infrastructure SIP submission, as explained
in the TSD for this rulemaking action, shows that West Virginia has
provided the necessary assurances that the State has the unambiguous
authority to enforce its SIP and the measures contained therein. It is
also unclear what the commenter was referring to in regard to some
party using the infrastructure SIP to ``bully corporations and public
officials.'' An infrastructure SIP is simply a SIP submission to
establish that the state's existing EPA approved SIP, or the existing
SIP as revised in the infrastructure SIP submission, meets the
applicable requirements to implement, maintain, and enforce a new or
revised NAAQS. The infrastructure SIP is required to address basic
program elements, including, but not limited to, regulatory structure,
monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and adequate resources necessary
to assure attainment and maintenance of the new or revised standard.
    Comment 3: The third comment suggested that EPA should disapprove
West Virginia's infrastructure SIP submission in full, stating,
``[m]uch of the infrastructure SIP could be used by the federal
government for any purpose.'' The commenter also suggested that EPA has
not been meeting legislative deadlines and that some members of
Congress are not aware of the purpose of infrastructure SIP
submissions.
    Response 3: EPA disagrees with the comment to the extent that it
calls for disapproving West Virginia's infrastructure SIP, because the
commenter did not provide any information or basis to support such a
disapproval. Although the commenter alleges EPA missed legislative
deadlines, the commenter did not identify which deadlines EPA missed or
why those deadlines would be relevant to this rulemaking. The
Administrative Procedures Act does not require that EPA change its
decision based on ``comments consisting of little more than assertions
that in the opinions of the commenters the agency got it wrong,'' when
submitted without supporting data. International Fabricare Institute v.
E.P.A., 972 F.2d 384 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Nothing in the comment calls
into question EPA's evaluation of West Virginia's infrastructure SIP
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS for each applicable requirement in CAA section
110(a)(2), with the exception of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) which EPA
is not acting on at this time, and concludes the State has met the
applicable requirements.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving West Virginia's September 14, 2018 infrastructure
submittal as a revision to the West Virginia SIP. EPA is approving the
West Virginia's September 14, 2018 SIP revision as meeting the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA to implement, maintain,
and enforce the 2015 ozone NAAQS, including specifically section
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J),
(K), (L), and (M) for this NAAQS. This final rulemaking action does not
include action on section 110(a)(2)(I) or portions of section
110(a)(2)(C) referring to the permit program under part D, title I of
the CAA. This rulemaking action also does not address section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) which pertains to the interstate transport of
emissions

addressed by West Virginia's February 4, 2019 supplemental SIP
revision; EPA will act on West Virginia's supplemental SIP revision in
a later separate action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 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, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is 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.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is 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
     Does 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).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 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).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 May 18, 2020. 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. This action, pertaining to West Virginia's infrastructure
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 24, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
    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 XX--West Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2520, amend the table in paragraph table (e) by adding
an entry for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the
2015 ozone NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name of non-regulatory SIP    Applicable geographic  State submittal                           Additional
           revision                      area                date       EPA approval date       explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2)               Statewide............         9/14/18   3/17/20, Federal   Docket #2019-0103.
 Infrastructure Requirements                                             Register.          This action
 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.                                                                  addresses the
                                                                                following CAA
                                                                                elements of section
                                                                                110(a)(2): A, B, C,
                                                                                D(i)(II), D(ii), E,
                                                                                F, G, H, J, K, L,
                                                                                and M.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-04856 Filed 3-16-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Meeting Summary- Glyphosate

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Attendees:

(EPA)

John Pates, Jr. / Chemical Review Manager, SRRD

Tom Moriarty / Team Leader, SRRD

(Monsanto)

Mr. Stephen Adams / Registration Manager, Glyphosate

Dr. Gregory Watson / Chemistry Federal & State Regulatory Affairs Lead

Dr. Russell Schneider / Senior Director US Regulatory Affairs Policy

Meeting Discussion:

Agency personnel from SRRD met with Monsanto representatives (main
technical registrant for glyphosate) to discuss matters related to the
anticipated opening of the docket for the registration review of
glyphosate.  The company was interested in determining the overall
aspects of how the registration review process worked and the timing
involved for the scheduling of the preliminary work plan.

A workshare proposal with the Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency
(PMRA) of Health Canada was also discussed.  The Agency is currently in
communications with PMRA in an effort to streamline and/or harmonize our
scheduling process together.