[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 108 (Thursday, June 4, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34375-34378]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12028]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0462; Product Identifier 2019-SW-021-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C1 and AS332L1 helicopters.
This proposed AD was prompted by a report that the affected helicopters
use the same ``flight/ground'' logic signal instead of independent
redundant signals. This proposed AD would require amending the
emergency procedures of the rotorcraft flight manual (RFM) for your
helicopter, a wiring modification of the ``flight/ground'' logic signal
source of the attitude heading and reference system (AHRS) 1, and then
removal of the amendment to the RFM for your helicopter. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 20,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus
Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; phone: (972)
641-0000 or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort
Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0462; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the European Aviation Safety Agency (now European Union
Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Schwab, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX

76177; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-0462;
Product Identifier 2019-SW-021-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM because of those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0021, dated February 1, 2019;
corrected February 4, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0021) (referred to after this
as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information or ``the MCAI''),
to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Helicopters Model
AS332C1 and AS332L1 helicopters. EASA advises that the AHRS 1 and AHRS
2 installed on AS332C1e and AS332L1e helicopters use the same `flight/
ground' logic signal, instead of independent redundant signals, as
required by the original design specification. If both AHRS incorrectly
receive ``ground'' status in flight, as a result for instance of a
single failure, this will generate consistent erroneous computation of
the attitudes and vertical speed during helicopter maneuvers with
consequent incorrect flight data indications to the flight crew on both
primary displays. EASA AD 2019-0021 states that this condition, if not
corrected, could lead to increased workload for the flight crew when
the upper modes of the automatic flight control system are not engaged,
possibly resulting in reduced control of the helicopter during high
speed maneuvers in instrumental meteorological conditions (IMC).
    EASA further advises that Airbus Helicopters has issued rush
revisions to the RFM, and developed a modification of the wiring
harness, ensuring independent sources of the ``flight/ground'' logic
signal for both AHRS. EASA AD 2019-0021 requires amending the emergency
procedures of the applicable RFM, doing the modification of the wiring
harness, and then removing the amendment to the RFM.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2020-0462.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus Helicopters has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. AS332-
34.00.60, Revision 1, dated March 29, 2019. This service information
describes procedures for a wiring modification of the ``flight/ground''
logic signal source of the AHRS 1, which changes the ``flight/ground''
logic signal source to independent redundant signals.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    Airbus Helicopters has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. AS332-
34.00.60, Revision 0, dated December 6, 2018. The service information
describes procedures for a wiring modification of the ``flight/ground''
logic signal source of the AHRS 1, which changes the ``flight/ground''
logic signal source to independent redundant signals. Airbus Service
Bulletin No. AS332-34.00.60, Revision 1, dated March 29, 2019,
clarifies the procedures for the post-installation test in Alert
Service Bulletin No. AS332-34.00.60, Revision 0, dated December 6,
2018.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to a bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA
has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD
after evaluating all the relevant information and determining the
unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on
other products of these same type designs.

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information.''

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    EASA AD 2019-0021 specifies to do the modification within 6 months.
This proposed AD would require the modification be done within 100
hours time-in-service or before intentional flight into IMC, whichever
occurs first. The FAA has determined this compliance time represents
the maximum interval of time allowable for the affected helicopters to
continue to safely operate before the modification is done.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 8 helicopters of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 work-hours x $85 per hour = $595...........................             $40             $635           $5,080
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely
to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

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):

Airbus Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2020-0462; Product Identifier
2019-SW-021-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by July 20, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C1 and AS332L1
helicopters, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial
numbers, equipped with an Advanced Helicopter Cockpit & Avionics
System (AHCAS), except helicopters that have Airbus Helicopters
modification 0728576 embodied in production.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code 3420, Attitude and
direction data system.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that the affected helicopters
use the same ``flight/ground'' logic signal, instead of independent
redundant signals. The FAA is issuing this AD to address certain
helicopters that use the same ``flight/ground'' logic signal,
instead of independent redundant signals. If both attitude heading
and reference systems (AHRS) incorrectly receive ``ground'' status
in flight, as a result for instance of a single failure, this will
generate consistent erroneous computation of the attitudes and
vertical speed during helicopter maneuvers with consequent incorrect
flight data indications to the flight crew on both primary displays.
Erroneous flight information could lead to increased workload for
the flight crew when the upper modes of the automatic flight control
system are not engaged, possibly resulting in reduced control of the
helicopter during high speed maneuvers in instrumental
meteorological conditions (IMC).

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Amend
the emergency procedures of the rotorcraft flight manual (RFM) for
your helicopter by inserting the supplemental text specified in
Figure 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, immediately following
paragraph 9 GROUND/FLIGHT LOGIC FAULT.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04JN20.000

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
    (2) Within 100 hours time-in-service or before intentional
flight into IMC, whichever occurs first after the effective date of
this AD, do the wiring modification of the ``flight/ground'' logic
signal source of the AHRS 1 in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. AS332-
34.00.60, Revision 1, dated March 29, 2019. After completion of the
wiring modification, the RFM amendment required by paragraph (g)(1)
of this AD must be removed from the RFM for your helicopter.

(h) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR
21.197 and 21.199 to operate the helicopter to a location where the
helicopter can be modified (if the operator elects to do so),
provided the helicopter is operated under visual flight rules only.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Airbus Helicopters Alert Service
Bulletin No. AS332-34.00.60, Revision 0, dated December 6, 2018.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards
Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to:
George Schwab, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section,
Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth,
TX 76177; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, notify your
principal inspector or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of
the local flight standards district office or certificate holding
district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this
AD through an AMOC.

(k) Related Information

    (1) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD
2019-0021, dated February 1, 2019; corrected February 4, 2019. This
EASA AD may be found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2020-0462.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html.
You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-
321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on May 29, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-12028 Filed 6-3-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60940-60943]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27806]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0234; FRL-9969-97]

Alpha-cypermethrin; Proposed Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend existing tolerances for
residues of alpha-cypermethrin in or on fruit, citrus, group 10-10 and
hog fat under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This
proposal sets an expiration date for the existing tolerances while
establishing new lower tolerance levels that will cover the same
commodities when the current tolerances expire. EPA is proposing these
changes to correct an error in a previous rulemaking that established
these tolerances at an unintended level.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0234, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Goodis, Director,
Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

II. This Proposal

    EPA, on its own initiative under FFDCA section 408(e), 21 U.S.C.
346a(e), is proposing to amend the existing tolerances for the
insecticide alpha-cypermethrin to reduce the allowable levels of the
pesticide in or on fruit, citrus, group 10-10 from 10 parts per million
(ppm) to 0.35 ppm and in or on hog, fat from 1.0 ppm to 0.10 ppm. EPA
is proposing this action in order to correct a typographical error that
occurred in the final rule establishing these tolerances on February 1,
2013 (78 FR 7266) (FRL-9376-1). In support of the 2013 final rule, EPA
had reviewed residue field trial data and determined that the
appropriate tolerance levels for fruit, citrus, group 10-10 and for
hog, fat were 0.35 ppm and 0.10 ppm, respectively. Unfortunately, the
instructions to the Federal Register contained incorrect tolerance
values for these commodities and the incorrect tolerance levels were
finalized in that rule. To remedy that error, EPA is proposing to
correct the tolerance levels.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with FFDCA
section 408(b)(2), for tolerances for residues of alpha-cypermethrin.
    Alpha-cypermethrin and zeta-cypermethrin are enriched isomers of
the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin. Although cypermethrin, zeta-
cypermethrin, and alpha-cypermethrin are separate active ingredients
with different end-use products, they are included together in the
hazard evaluation for the purpose of human health risk assessment. The
toxicology database for the cypermethrins includes studies with
cypermethrin and both of its enriched isomers, and is considered
complete for the purpose of risk assessment. When considering alpha-
cypermethrin, the EPA also considers potential exposures from the other
registered cypermethrins (i.e., cypermethrin and zeta-cypermethrin),
since the three active ingredients are essentially the same active from
the mammalian toxicity perspective.
    In the final rule published in the Federal Register of February 1,
2013 (78 FR 7266) (FRL-9376-1), EPA established tolerances for residues
of alpha-cypermethrin in multiple commodities. Since the publication of
that final rule, the toxicity profile of alpha-cypermethrin (as
described in that rule) has not changed, and there have been no
revisions to the toxicological database for the cypermethrins since
that rule. In addition, although new tolerances have been established
since that 2013 rule (tolerances for residues of alpha-cypermethrin in
or on food commodities/feed commodities (other than those covered by a
higher tolerance as a result of use on growing crops) in food/feed
handling establishments at 0.05 ppm December 1, 2014 (79 FR 73210)
(FRL-9918-88); zeta-cypermethrin in or on alfalfa, forage at 15 ppm and
alfalfa, hay at 30 ppm December 24, 2014 (79 FR 77391) (FRL-9920-23)
and corn, field, forage at 9.0 ppm, corn, field, stover at 30 ppm,
corn, pop, stover at 30 ppm July 30, 2015 (80 FR 45435) (FRL-9929-74),
these new tolerances have not increased exposure warranting a new risk
assessment since the rulemaking in February 2013. Because the risk
assessments supporting the establishment of the February 2013
tolerances assessed the correct tolerances associated with fruit,
citrus, group 10-10 (0.35 ppm) and hog fat (0.10 ppm) and found them to
be adequate, that risk assessment continues to support this proposal.
Therefore, EPA is relying on those risk assessments in order to support
the corrected tolerances for alpha-cypermethrin in fruit, citrus, group
10-10 and hog fat. EPA did ensure that the percent crop treated
information assessed in the 2010 risk assessment is still valid. The
most recent Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) dated September 29,
2016 updating PCT data shows that the 2010 estimates are actually
overestimates. For a detailed discussion of the aggregate risk
assessments and determination of safety, refer to the February 1, 2013
Federal Register final rule and its supporting documents, available at
http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0234.
    Based on the risk assessments and information described in this
unit, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result to the general population, or to infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to alpha-cypermethrin residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate tolerance-enforcement methods are available in PAM Volume
II for determining residues of cypermethrin, zeta-cypermethrin and
alpha-cypermethrin in plant (Method I) and livestock (Method II)
commodities. Both methods are gas chromatographic methods with
electron-capture detection (GC/ECD), and have undergone successful
Agency petition method validations (PMVs). Method I has a limit of
detection (LOD) of 0.01 ppm, and Method II has LODs of 0.005 ppm in
milk, and 0.01 ppm in livestock tissues. These methods are not
stereospecific; thus no distinction is made between residues of
cypermethrin (all eight stereoisomers), zeta-cypermethrin (enriched in
four isomers) and alpha-cypermethrin (two isomers).

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4).

The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it
is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting
organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party.
EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL;
however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons
for departing from the Codex level.
    There are multiple Codex MRLs for alpha-cypermethrin, but all are
in conjunction with MRLs for total cypermethrin isomers (no MRLs have
been established solely for alpha-cypermethrin). However, although the
definitions of the isomers covered differ formally between U.S.
tolerances and Codex MRLs, the definitions of coverage are effectively
harmonized since the tolerance enforcement methods are not
stereospecific, and thus do not distinguish between residues of
cypermethrin, zeta-cypermethrin and alpha-cypermethrin. For enforcement
purposes, the same moiety is being regulated.
    There is a Codex MRL established for citrus fruits at 0.3 ppm and
there is no Codex MRL for hog fat. Because the U.S. use patterns differ
from those upon which the Codex MRLs are based, EPA is not proposing to
harmonize the U.S. tolerance for citrus fruit.

C. International Trade Considerations

    In this proposal, EPA is proposing to reduce the existing
tolerances for commodities in crop group 10-10 from 10 ppm to 0.35 ppm
and on hog, fat from 1.0 ppm to 0.1 ppm. The Agency intends to reduce
these tolerances to correct the tolerance levels that EPA intended to
establish in a previous rulemaking based on available residue data.
    In accordance with the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement, EPA will notify the WTO of
its intent to revise this tolerance. In addition, the SPS Agreement
requires that Members provide a ``reasonable interval'' between the
publication of a regulation subject to the Agreement and its entry into
force in order to allow time for producers in exporting Member
countries to adapt to the new requirement. At this time, EPA is
proposing to allow the existing tolerances remain for a period of six
months after the effective date of the final rule, in order to address
this requirement.
    This reduction in tolerance levels is not discriminatory; the same
food safety standard contained in the FFDCA applies equally to
domestically produced and imported foods.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, EPA is proposing to amend existing tolerances for
residues of alpha-cypermethrin in or on fruit, citrus, group 10-10 and
hog, fat at 0.35 ppm and 0.10 ppm, respectively. EPA is also proposing
to establish a six-month expiration date for the existing tolerances
while establishing new lower tolerances for these commodities.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This proposed action would amend existing tolerances under FFDCA
section 408(e) in an action taken on the Agency's own initiative. The
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of
actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this
proposed action has been exempted from review under Executive Order
12866 due to its lack of significance, this proposed action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), nor is it subject to Executive Order
13771, entitled ``Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This proposed action does not
contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), or impose any
enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive
Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under
Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This proposed action does not involve any technical standards
that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus
standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency
previously assessed whether establishment of tolerances, exemptions
from tolerances, raising of tolerance levels, expansion of exemptions,
or revocations might significantly impact a substantial number of small
entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not
impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. These analyses for tolerance establishments and
modifications, and for tolerance revocations were published in the
Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) and December 17, 1997 (62
FR 66020) (FRL-5753-1), respectively, and were provided to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In a
memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA determined that eight conditions
must all be satisfied in order for an import tolerance or tolerance
exemption revocation to adversely affect a significant number of small
entity importers, and that there is a negligible joint probability of
all eight conditions holding simultaneously with respect to any
particular revocation. Furthermore, for alpha-cypermethrin, the Agency
knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present
rule that would change EPA's previous analysis. Taking into account
this analysis, and available information concerning the pesticides
listed in this rule, EPA hereby certifies that this rule will not have
a significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. In addition, the Agency has determined that this proposed
action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled
``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies
that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive order
to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.'' This proposed action directly regulates
growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not
States. This proposed action does not alter the relationships or
distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress

in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). For these same
reasons, the Agency has determined that this proposed action does not
have any ``tribal implications'' as described in Executive Order 13175,
entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13175,
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' This proposed action will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: November 13, 2017.
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as
follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.418, paragraph (a)(3):
0
a. Revise the existing entries for ``Fruit, citrus, group 10-10''; and
``Hog, fat''; and add footnote 1''; and
0
b. Add alphabetically the following entries for ``Fruit, citrus, group
10-10''; and ``Hog, fat''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  180.418   Cypermethrin and isomers alpha-cypermethrin and zeta-
cypermethrin; tolerances for residues.

    (a)(3) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 \1\..............................          10
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10..................................        0.35

                                * * * * *
Hog, fat \1\................................................         1.0
Hog, fat....................................................        0.10

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This tolerance expires on June 26, 2018.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-27806 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 93 (Monday, May 14, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22207-22208]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10162]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0716; FRL-9977-26--Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Interstate Transport Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving portions of three
Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittals pertaining to CAA
requirements to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) in other states.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0716. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information 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 either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Young,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our
February 14, 2018 proposal (83 FR 6493). In that document we proposed
to approve portions of three Texas SIP submittals pertaining to the CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements based on our conclusion, which
is consistent with the State's ultimate conclusion, that emissions from
Texas will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 p.m. 2.5 NAAQS in other states.
Specifically, we proposed to approve (1) the portions of the April 4,
2008 and May 1, 2008 SIP submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
and (2) the portion of the November 23, 2009 submittal for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, as they pertain to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    We received comments in support of our proposal from the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and Vistra Energy
Corporation. TCEQ also noted in their comments that they disagree with
EPA's method for determining significant contribution to nonattainment
or interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. We
acknowledge the State's position and welcome continued discussion and
collaboration between EPA and the State on the issue.

II. Final Action

    We are approving the portions of the April 4, 2008 and May 1, 2008
SIP submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the portion of
the November 23, 2009 submittal for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, as
they pertain to CAA requirements to prohibit emissions which will
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in other states.

III. 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. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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 Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 13, 2018. 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 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, Particulate matter.

    Dated: May 8, 2018.
Anne Idsal,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    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 SS--Texas

0
2. In Sec.  52.2270(e), in the second table, titled ``EPA-Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas
SIP,'' revise the entry for ``Infrastructure and Interstate Transport
for the 1997 Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS'' to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.2270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

              EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Applicable geographic  State submittal/    EPA approval
     Name of SIP provision      or nonattainment area   effective date         date               Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Infrastructure and Interstate   Statewide............  12/12/2007, 3/11/ 12/28/2011, 76    Approval for CAA
 Transport for the 1997 Ozone                           2008, 4/4/2008,   FR 81371.         elements
 and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5                            5/1/2008, 11/23/                    110(a)(2)(A), (B),
 NAAQS.                                                 2009.                               (E), (F), (G), (H),
                                                                                (K), (L), and (M).
                                                                                Full approval for
                                                                                CAA elements
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C),
                                                                                (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii)
                                                                                and (J) with
                                                                                approval of the GHG
                                                                                PSD revision (11/10/
                                                                                2014, 79 FR 66626).
                                                                                1997 and 2006 PM2.5
                                                                                element D(i)(I)
                                                                                approved 5/14/2018,
                                                                                [Insert Federal
                                                                                Register citation].

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

[FR Doc. 2018-10162 Filed 5-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 243 (Monday, December 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 91996-91997]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30446]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2016-0112]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    In accordance with part 235 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that
by a document dated November 16, 2016, Union Pacific Railroad (UP)
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval
for the discontinuance or modification of a signal system. FRA assigned
the petition Docket Number FRA-2016-0112.
    Applicant: Union Pacific Railroad, Mr. Kevin D. Hicks, AVP
Engineering--Design, 1400 Douglas Street, MS 0910, Omaha, NE 68179.
    UP seeks approval of the modification of the coded track circuits
on the siding, between control point (CP) 0233 at Milepost (MP) 233.4
and CP 0235, MP 235.0, on the San Antonio Service Unit, Austin
Subdivision, in the cities of Schertz and New Braunfels, TX. The

Red Over Yellow and Red Over Flashing Yellow signal aspects will be
removed at each CP with the Red Over Flashing Red aspects remaining.
    The reason given for the proposed modification is to accommodate an
increased volume of switching operations, which will take place in the
siding with the construction of a new rock facility adjacent to Corbyn
Yard.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U. S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by February 2, 2017 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the privacy
notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-30446 Filed 12-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P