[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9588-9589]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02961]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0043]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Mile 535.0, Upper Mississippi
River, Sabula, IA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Sabula Railroad Drawbridge across
the Upper Mississippi River, mile 535.0, at Sabula, Iowa. The deviation
is necessary to allow the bridge owner time to perform preventive
maintenance that is essential to the continued safe operation of the
drawbridge. Maintenance is scheduled in the winter when there is less
impact on navigation; instead of scheduling work in the summer, when
river traffic increases. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in
the closed-to-

navigation position while a bent shaft and damaged gear assembly are
replaced.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m., February 11, 2013, to 7
a.m., February 25, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2013-0043. The docket for this notice, USCG-2013-0043, is
available online at www.regulations.gov by typing the docket number in
the ``SEARCH'' box and clicking ``SEARCH.'' Next, click on Open Docket
Folder on the line associated with this notice. You may also visit the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Eric A. Washburn, Bridge
Administrator, Western Rivers, Coast Guard<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Canadian Pacific Railway requested a
temporary deviation for the Sabula Railroad Drawbridge, across the
Upper Mississippi River, mile 535.0, at Sabula, Iowa to remain in the
closed-to-navigation position while a bent shaft and damaged gear
assembly are replaced. The closure period will start at 7 a.m.,
February 11, 2013, and last until 7 a.m., February 25, 2013.
    Once the bent shaft and gear assembly are removed, the swing span
will not be able to open, even for emergencies, until the replacement
of the shaft and gear assembly is installed.
    The Sabula Railroad Drawbridge currently operates in accordance
with 33 CFR 117.5, which states the general requirement that
drawbridges shall open promptly and fully for the passage of vessels
when a request to open is given in accordance with the subpart. In
order to facilitate the needed bridge work, the drawbridge must be kept
in the closed-to-navigation position.
    There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section
of the Upper Mississippi River.
    The Sabula Railroad Drawbridge, in the closed-to-navigation
position, provides a vertical clearance of 18.1 feet above normal pool.
Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and
recreational watercraft. This temporary deviation has been coordinated
with the waterway users. No objections were received.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: January 25, 2013.
Eric A. Washburn,
Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers.
[FR Doc. 2013-02961 Filed 2-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13733-13734]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05017]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9500-01-OAR]

Disclosure of Information Claimed as, or Determined by EPA To Be,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) in Renewable Fuel Standard
(RFS) Small Refinery Exemption Petitions and Certain RFS Compliance
Reports

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing
notice of disclosure to all obligated parties under the Renewable Fuel
Standard (RFS) program that have petitioned for a small refinery
exemption (SRE) or that have submitted any of the following RFS
compliance reports: RFS2500 Efficient Producer Data Report, RFS0303
Annual Report, RFS0104 RFS Activity Report, and RFS0105 RFS Activity
Report. In response to a request by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO), EPA will disclose information to GAO which has been
submitted to EPA that is claimed to be, or has been determined to be,
confidential business information (CBI). The information to be
disclosed includes all documents, information, and data related to all
small refinery exemption petitions received by EPA since May 21, 2021,
through December 31, 2023, and all information in the aforementioned
RFS compliance reports. These records include, but are not limited to:
(a) All materials submitted by the small refineries as part of their
petitions; (b) any documentation sent by the Department of Energy (DOE)
to EPA stating DOE's findings and scores associated with the petitions
and any EPA responses thereto; (c) any EPA record addressing the
subject of the exemption petitions, including any analysis that EPA
conducted in addition to DOE's findings; and (d) EPA's final exemption
decisions sent to the refineries.

DATES: EPA will disclose the material discussed in this document to
GAO, including any CBI therein, on March 28, 2022. All CBI-claimed
documents will be destroyed, deleted, or returned to EPA at the
conclusion of GAO's review.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Nelson, Environmental Protection
Specialist, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In connection with a GAO review, EPA
received a request under 40 CFR 2.209(b) from GAO for records submitted
to EPA under the RFS program since the date EPA last shared similar
documents with GAO (May 21, 2021) through December 31, 2023. GAO, as
part of the same program review, has also requested access to a RIN
analysis that potentially contains derivative CBI sourced from certain
RFS compliance reports. The information that will be disclosed to GAO
includes all

documents, information, and data related to all SRE petitions that are
received by EPA between May 21, 2021, and December 31, 2023--including
new petitions and supplemental information submitted in support of an
existing petition--and all information from the following compliance
reports for the specified time periods: RFS2500 Efficient Producer Data
Report for compliance years 2016 through 2021; RFS0303 Annual Report
for compliance years 2011 through 2019; RFS0104 RFS Activity Report for
compliance years 2011 through 2019; and RFS0105 RFS Activity Report for
compliance year 2020. These records include, but are not limited to:
(a) All materials submitted by the small refineries as part of their
petitions; (b) any documentation sent by DOE to EPA stating DOE's
findings and score associated with the petitions; (c) any analysis that
EPA conducted in addition to DOE's findings; (d) EPA's final exemption
decisions sent to the refineries; and (e) all information from the
aforementioned RFS compliance reports for the specified time periods.
    This notice is being provided pursuant to 40 CFR 2.209(b)(2) to
inform potentially affected entities that EPA intends to transmit
certain documents, which may contain information submitted by oil
refiners and refineries, or any company associated therewith, that is
claimed to be, or has been determined to be, CBI to GAO in response to
its request for information. The disclosure of CBI is limited to GAO
and further disclosure is generally restricted by 31 U.S.C. 716(e), and
subject to criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. 1905. Any objections to
this disclosure must be raised within 15 calendar days from publication
of this notice.

    Dated: March 1, 2022.
Byron Bunker,
Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality.
[FR Doc. 2022-05017 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 18064]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06595]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2007-0030]

Petition for Extension of Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on March 11, 2022, NJ TRANSIT
Corporation (NJT) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
for an extension of a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of
the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR parts 213,
219, 221, 222, 223, 229, 231, 234, 236, 238, 239, 242, 243, and 270.
The relevant FRA Docket Number is FRA-2007-0030.
    Specifically, NJT requests an extension of relief from multiple
regulations and seeks new relief from two additional parts (243 and
270) for NJT's Southern New Jersey Light Rail Transit (the ``River
Line''). The River Line is a commuter light rail transit system that
operates over the Bordentown Secondary Track, track NJT shares with the
Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail). The operation uses diesel
multiple unit trainsets during an exclusive passenger period,
temporally separated from Conrail's nightly freight operations over the
same tracks. NJT states that the relief facilitates more efficient and
productive joint use of the trackage and that the limited nighttime
joint operations have been carried out safely since the original waiver
was granted.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    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 and a public hearing, 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 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Communications received by May 13, 2022 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can 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.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S. Department of Transportation (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
https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of
regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-06595 Filed 3-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 5 (Thursday, January 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 1068]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00048]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2014-149]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Kansas
State University

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before January 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-1088
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Troutman,<PHONE_NUMBER>. 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 2, 2015.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2014-1088.
    Petitioner: Kansas State University.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: part 21; Sec. Sec.  61.113(a) and
(b), 61.3(d)(2)(iii), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.109, 91.119, 91.121,
91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2) and
91.417(a) and (b).
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner is requesting relief
to commercially operate its fixed wing small unmanned aircraft systems
(sUAS), including the gas powered Penguin B at and below 1,200 feet
above ground level, under controlled conditions in the National
Airspace System for the purposes of flight training.

[FR Doc. 2015-00048 Filed 1-7-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 81 (Friday, April 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17835-17837]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08472]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-D-4048]

Unique Device Identification: Convenience Kits; Guidance for
Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a final guidance entitled ``Unique Device
Identification: Convenience Kits; Guidance for Industry and Food and
Drug Administration Staff.'' The unique device identification system
regulations require that the label and device package of a device must
bear a unique device identifier (UDI), unless an exception or
alternative applies. An exception is provided for devices packaged
within the immediate container of a convenience kit, if the label of
the convenience kit bears a UDI. This guidance document describes FDA's
interpretation of the definition of ``convenience kit.'' This guidance
does not apply to in vitro diagnostic (IVD) devices that are subject to
IVD labeling requirements nor does it apply to combination products.

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on April 26, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on
Agency guidances at any time as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2015-D-4048 for ``Unique Device Identification: Convenience Kits:
Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff;
Availability.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket and,
except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly
viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management
Staff between 9

a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)). An electronic copy of the guidance document is available
for download from the internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit
written requests for a single hard copy of the guidance document
entitled ``Unique Device Identification: Convenience Kits: Guidance for
Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability'' to the
Office of Policy, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or
the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.
Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Center for Devices and
Radiological Health-regulated devices: Christina Savisaar, Unique
Device Identifier Regulatory Policy Support,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected]. For Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research-regulated devices: Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-7911.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance entitled ``Unique
Device Identification: Convenience Kits; Guidance for Industry and Food
and Drug Administration Staff.'' In the September 24, 2013, Federal
Register (78 FR 58786), FDA published a final rule establishing the
unique device identification system, which is designed to adequately
identify medical devices during their distribution and use (the UDI
Rule). Under 21 CFR 801.20, a device is required to bear a UDI on its
label and packages unless an exception or alternative applies.
Individual devices packaged within the immediate container of a
convenience kit are excepted from the UDI labeling requirements of 21
CFR 801.20, provided that a UDI is on the label of the immediate
container of the convenience kit (21 CFR 801.30(a)(11)). Convenience
kits are themselves devices.
    A convenience kit is ``two or more different medical devices
packaged together for the convenience of the user'' (21 CFR 801.3). FDA
interprets this to mean a device that contains two or more different
medical devices packaged together and intended to remain packaged
together and not to be replaced, substituted, or repackaged.
    Although FDA previously expressed thinking that medical procedure
kits containing only devices are convenience kits,\1\ FDA believes that
this policy requires clarification for consistency with the objective
of the unique device identification system. For purposes of the UDI
regulations, FDA does not consider every medical procedure kit, nor
every collection of two or more medical devices, to be a ``convenience
kit.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 78 FR 58876 (the ``UDI Rule'') at 58800.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDA recognizes that the interpretation of terms provided in this
guidance may mean that fewer medical procedure kits are ``convenience
kits'' for purposes of the UDI regulations, which may impact the
assembly and packaging of medical procedure kits that are not
``convenience kits.'' Nevertheless, FDA believes that the
interpretation of the term ``convenience kit'' in this guidance
document is appropriate. As for all devices, a labeler may request an
exception from or alternative to a UDI requirement under 21 CFR 801.55.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
Agency's current thinking on ``Unique Device Identification--
Convenience Kits; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug
Administration Staff''. It does not create or confer any rights for or
on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. You can
use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statute and regulations. This guidance is not subject to
Executive Order 12866.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by
downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability
for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents
is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. This
guidance documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov or
https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm]. Persons unable to
download an electronic copy of ``Unique Device Identification:
Convenience Kits--Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug
Administration Staff'' may send an email request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of the document.
Please use the document number 1500010 to identify the guidance you are
requesting.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of
information in the following FDA regulations have been approved by OMB
as listed in the following table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            OMB control
            21 CFR part                     Topic               No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
801, subpart B, and 830...........  Unique Device              0910-0720
                                     Identification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: April 23, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-08472 Filed 4-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 545-549]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31307]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0032; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-236-AD;
Amendment 39-17717; AD 2013-26-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series
airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of arcing and smoke at the
left number 2 window in the flight deck. This AD requires inspecting
the orientation of both sides of the coil cord connector keyways of the
number 2 windows on the flight deck; re-clocking the connector keyways,
if necessary; and replacing the coil cord assemblies on both number 2
windows on the flight deck. We are issuing this AD to prevent arcing,
smoke, and fire in the flight deck, which could lead to injuries to or
incapacitation of the flightcrew.

DATES: This AD is effective February 10, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of February 10,
2014.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. 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 http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2011-
0032; 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Louis Natsiopoulos, Aerospace
Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified
products. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2012
(77 FR 41931). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), which published in the Federal Register January 26,
2011 (76 FR 4567). The NPRM (76 FR 4567, January 26, 2011) proposed to
require inspecting the orientation of both sides of the coil cord
connector keyways of the number 2 windows on the flight deck; re-
clocking the connector keyways to 12 o'clock, if necessary; and
replacing the coil cord assemblies on both number 2 windows on the
flight deck. The SNPRM proposed to require changing the keyway position
of certain receptacle connectors and adding airplanes to the
applicability.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(77 FR 41931, July 17, 2012) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Expand Applicability

    Boeing requested that we revise the applicability of the SNPRM (77
FR 41931, July 17, 2012) to include the airplanes specified in Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April
24, 2013. Boeing stated that the effectivity of this service bulletin
includes 75 airplanes that were delivered with the identified unsafe
condition.
    We agree that the 75 airplanes were delivered with the identified
unsafe condition. However, we disagree with expanding the applicability
of this final rule, because that would necessitate (under the
provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act) reissuing the notice,
reopening the period for public comment, considering additional
comments subsequently received, and eventually issuing a final rule. We
have determined that further delay of this final rule is not
appropriate in light of the identified unsafe condition that exists in
the airplanes specified in the applicability of the SNPRM (77 FR 41931,
July 17, 2012). However, we might consider additional rulemaking in the
future. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

Request To Allow a Power Removal Procedure

    American Airlines (AAL) stated that it has no objections to the
SNPRM (77 FR 41931, July 17, 2012), but requested that we allow the
removal of power by opening circuit breakers in Step B.1., of Part 1,
of the Work Instructions in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
737-30-1058, Revision 4, dated November 3, 2011. AAL stated that
removal of power by opening circuit breakers is allowed in Step
B.1.(b)., of Part 2, of the Work Instructions in Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 4, dated November 3,
2011. AAL explained that removal of power by opening circuit breakers
would greatly reduce the disruption to airplane maintenance being
accomplished concurrently.
    We agree with AAL's request. The requested procedure is included in
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5,
dated April 24, 2013. We have changed paragraphs (g), (h), and (k) of
this final rule (paragraph (k) in this final rule was identified as
paragraph (i) in the SNPRM (77 FR 41931, July 17, 2012)) to refer to
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5,
dated April 24, 2013, as the appropriate source of service information.
    Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5,
dated April 24, 2013, specifies an additional inspection that is not
included in Revision 4 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin,
dated November 3, 2011. For Group 1, Configuration 3, and Group 2,
Configuration 2, airplanes, Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, specifies a general
visual inspection for rubbing damage on the coil cords, and replacement
of the coil cord with a new coil cord if rubbing damage is found.
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5,
dated April 24, 2013, describes the labor hours required for the
inspection as less than one hour for each coil cord. We have determined
that this minor change in inspection procedures will not impose an
additional burden on any operator; further, because it is a logical
outgrowth of the notice, an additional opportunity for public comment
will not be necessary. We have added the costs for this inspection to
the Costs of Compliance section of this final rule, added new paragraph
(i) to this final rule to require the coil cord inspection, and re-
designated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
    Revision 5 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-
1058, dated April 24, 2013, also describes changes to a wire diagram
reference and adds improved figure work instructions.

Request To Allow Re-installation of Coil Cords

    AAL requested that we allow retention and re-installation of coil
cords if they are the new part number and no damage is found on them
during the inspections proposed in the SNPRM (77 FR 41931, July 17,
2012). AAL stated that since the new coil cord has been available for
several years, it is possible that some airplanes may already have the
new coil cord installed.
    We disagree with revising this final rule because this final rule
and the referenced service information, Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, specify
further actions beyond simply installing a new coil cord. Figures 12
and 14 in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058,
Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, provide procedures for installation
of receptacle connectors on the cover as part of the coil cord
replacement for certain airplanes. Operators must ensure that all
applicable actions specified in the service information have been done
in addition to the installation of the new coil cord. However, under
the provisions of paragraph (l) of this final rule, we will consider
requests for approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to
allow retaining and reinstalling the coil cord on airplanes after the
effective date of this final rule, providing sufficient data is
submitted to address the identified unsafe condition. We have not
changed this final rule in this regard.

Request To Clarify Certain Work Instructions

    AAL requested that we clarify the work instructions for
reinstallation of connector receptacle D10572 for Group 1,
Configuration 1, airplanes as identified in Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 4, dated November 3, 2011. AAL
stated that Figures 12 and 14 of this service bulletin have steps to
reinstall the connector receptacle, but the work instructions and
figures for Group 1, Configuration 1 airplanes do not include steps
that remove the connector receptacle.
    We agree to clarify. The removal of the receptacle connector D10572
was addressed in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058,
Revision 3, dated July 7, 2010. The instructions were inadvertently
omitted in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058,
Revision 4, dated November 3, 2011. Boeing has added the requested

clarification to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058,
Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013. As referenced previously, we have
specified Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058,
Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, as the appropriate source of service
information in this final rule.

Additional Change to This Final Rule

    We have added new paragraph (j) to this final rule to specify
exceptions to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058,
Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, and redesignated the subsequent
paragraphs accordingly.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
SNPRM (77 FR 41931, July 17, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the SNPRM (77 FR 41931, July 17, 2012).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 712 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Cost per        Number of      Cost on U.S.
            Action                Labor cost      Parts cost        product         airplanes       operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keyway inspection and          6 work-hours x           $1,608  $2,118.........             712  $1,508,016.
 installation of new cord       $85 per hour =
 assemblies on both sides of    $510.
 the flight deck (Group 1,
 Configuration 1 airplanes).
Adjustment of receptacles on   4 work-hours x                0  340............             404  137,360.
 both sides of the flight       $85 per hour =
 deck (Group 1, Configuration   $340.
 2, and Group 2 airplanes).
Coil cord inspection (Group    1 work-hour x                 0  85 per coil                 404  34,240 per coil
 1, Configuration 3, and        $85 per hour =                   cord.                            cord.
 Group 2 airplanes).            $85 per coil
                                cord.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have
no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these
replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                         Labor cost                Parts cost           Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement........................  3 work-hours x $85 per hour  $1,735 per coil cord    $1,990 per coil cord
                                      = $255 per coil cord         assembly.               assembly.
                                      assembly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (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.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2013-26-08 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17717 ; Docket No. FAA-
2011-0032; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-236-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective February 10, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any
category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
737-30-1058, Revision 4, dated November 3, 2011.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 30, Ice and Rain Protection.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of arcing and smoke at the left
number 2 window in the flight deck. We are issuing this AD to
prevent arcing, smoke, and fire in the flight deck, which could lead
to injuries to or incapacitation of the flightcrew.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Replacement for Group 1, Configuration 1, Airplanes

    For airplanes identified as Group 1, Configuration 1, in Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated
April 24, 2013: Within 48 months after the effective date of this
AD, do the actions in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Do a general visual inspection of the orientation of the
coil cord connector keyways on the captain's and first officer's
sides of the flight compartment, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, except as
specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. If the orientation is not at
the specified position, before further flight, turn the receptacle
connector to the correct position, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, except as
specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
    (2) Replace the coil cords with new coil cords on both sides of
the flight deck, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision
5, dated April 24, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (j) of
this AD.

 (h) Receptacle Replacement for Group 1, Configuration 2, and Group 2,
Configuration 1 Airplanes

    For airplanes identified as Group 1, Configuration 2, and Group
2, Configuration 1, in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013: Within 48 months
after the effective date of this AD, install the receptacle
connector with changed keyway position on both sides of the flight
deck, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated
April 24, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

(i) Coil Cord Inspection and Corrective Action

    For airplanes identified as Group 1, Configuration 3, and Group
2, Configuration 2, in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013: Within 48 months
after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection
for rubbing damage of the coil cord on the captain's and first
officer's sides of the flight compartment, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013, except as
specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. If any rubbing damage is
found: Before further flight, replace the coil cord with a new coil
cord, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated
April 24, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

(j) Exceptions to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-
1058, Revision 5, Dated April 24, 2013

    (1) In the circuit breaker tables of the Work Instructions of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5,
dated April 24, 2013, the panel number for circuit breaker C00393 is
incorrectly identified as ``P6-12.'' The correct panel number
reference for circuit breaker C00393, ``WINDOW HEAT POWER RIGHT
SIDE,'' is P6-11.
    (2) In paragraph 3.B Work Instructions, of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated April 24,
2013, the description for Part 3 work instructions as PART 3:
RECEPTACLE CONNECTOR POSITION CHANGE is incorrect. The correct
description for Part 3 work instructions is PART 3: COIL CORD
INSPECTION AND REPLACEMENT IF DAMAGE IS FOUND.
    (3) In Figures 13 and 14, in paragraph 3.B Work Instructions, of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5,
dated April 24, 2013, before the step tables, the note misidentified
certain parts and airplane groups. The note should read:

    NOTE: Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes have the connector
receptacle identified as D10572. Group 3 airplanes have the
connector receptacle identified as D10560. Except for Group 1
airplanes, a wire diagram change is not necessary and not shown in
this service bulletin.

 (k) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the replacement required by
paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, if the replacement was performed before
the effective date of this AD using the service information
specified in paragraph (k)(1), (k)(2), (k)(3), (k)(4), or (k)(5) of
this AD, provided that the actions required by paragraph (h) of this
AD are done in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 4, dated November 3, 2011; or Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 5, dated
April 24, 2013; for Group 1, Configuration 2, and Group 2 airplanes.
    (1) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, dated July 27, 2006,
which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (2) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 1, dated June
18, 2007, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (3) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-30-1058, Revision 2, dated
February 13, 2009, which is not incorporated by reference in this
AD.
    (4) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058,
Revision 3, dated July 7, 2010, which is not incorporated by
reference in this AD.
    (5) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058,
Revision 4, dated November 3, 2011.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Louis
Natsiopoulos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-
130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 425-
917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference may be obtained at the addresses specified
in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD.

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058,
Revision 4, dated November 3, 2011.
    (ii) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1058,
Revision 5, dated April 24, 2013.
    (3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 20, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-31307 Filed 1-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 233)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 68529-68534]
[DOCID:fr05de07-19]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0195; FRL-8342-2]

Ethalfluralin; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
ethalfluralin in or on dill, dried leaves; dill, fresh leaves; mustard,
seed; potato; and rapeseed, seed. It also removes the current tolerance
for residues of ethalfluralin on canola seed since residues on canola
are covered by the rapeseed tolerance, thus making the canola tolerance
unnecessary. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested
the new tolerances and removal of the canola tolerance under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 5, 2007. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 4, 2008,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0195. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced

Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. 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 in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,

if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr.,
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Stanton, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural
workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
     Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers
and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers;
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g.,
agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers;

greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, you may access this Federal Register document

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a

frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at
40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR
site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, any person may file an objection to
any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part
178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0195 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or
before February 4, 2008.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0195, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of August 31, 2005 (70 FR 51797) (FRL-7730-
4), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petitions (PP
1E6326, PP 2E6360 and PP2E6466) by Interregional Research Project
Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ
08540-6635. The petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.416 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide ethalfluralin,
[N-ethyl-N-(2-methyl-2-propenyl)-2,6-dinitro-4-
(trifluoromethyl)benzenamine], in or on dill (PP 1E6326); rapeseed,
canola, crambe and mustard seed (PP2E6466); and potato (PP 2E6360) at
0.05 parts per million (ppm). That notice included a summary of the
petitions prepared by Dow AgroSciences LLC, the registrant, which is
available to the public in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov.

There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    EPA has modified the tolerances proposed in PP 1E6326 (rapeseed,
canola, crambe and mustard). The reason for these changes is explained
in Unit V.

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....'' These provisions were added to FFDCA by the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerance for residues of ethalfluralin on dill, dried leaves; dill,
fresh leaves; mustard, seed; potato; and rapeseed, seed at 0.05 ppm.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing
the tolerance follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by ethalfluralin as well as the no-
observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-
effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov
 in the document Ethalfluralin: Human Health Risk

Assessment for (IR-4) Proposed Uses on Dill and Potato. The referenced
document is available in the docket established by this action, which
is described under ADDRESSES, and is identified as document number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2005-0195-0001 in that docket.
    The toxicity database for ethalfluralin is complete and indicates
it has low acute toxicity by oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of
exposure. It is moderately irritating to the eye and produces moderate
to severe skin irritation. In one study ethalfluralin was negative for
dermal sensitization, but in another, it was considered positive.
    In general, subchronic and chronic feeding studies in rats, mice,
and dogs

indicate the liver as the target organ, with consistent effects of
enzymatic changes, liver weight increases, and histopathology (chronic
mouse). A combined chronic/carcinogenicity study in rats showed no non-
neoplastic effects at the highest dose tested (32 milligrams/kilogram/
day ((mg/kg/day). However, mammary gland fibroadenomas were increased
in a dose-related manner. The mouse carcinogenicity study showed no
increase in tumor incidence. Ethalfluralin was classified as a possible
human carcinogen in 1994 and, pursuant to that classification, cancer
risk is assessed using quantitative linear low-dose extrapolation.
    Ethalfluralin does not produce developmental toxicity in rats at
doses up to 1,000 mg/kg/day. There are several rabbit developmental
toxicity studies available; together, these studies indicate the
potential for ethalfluralin to induce skeletal malformations at doses
of >150 mg/kg/day. Maternal toxicity was observed at similar doses.
Ethalfluralin did not produce reproductive or offspring effects in the
3-generation reproduction studies; the parental effects consisted of
decreased body weight gains.
    There is no evidence of neurotoxicity in the submitted toxicity
studies for ethalfluralin.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological level of concern (LOC) is derived
from the highest dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the
NOAEL) in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in
risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest
dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is
sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the LOC to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the acute
population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted dose
(cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all
applicable UFs. Short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term risks are
evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable
UFs is not exceeded.
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms
of the probability of occurrence of additional adverse cases.
Generally, cancer risks are considered non-threshold. For more
information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization
and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm
.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for ethalfluralin used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in

document Ethalfluralin: Human Health Risk Assessment for (IR-4)
Proposed Uses on Dill and Potato at pages 13-17 in docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0195.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to ethalfluralin, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing ethalfluralin
tolerances in (40 CFR 180.416). EPA assessed dietary exposures from
ethalfluralin in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effect was
identified for the general population, including infants and children,
in the toxicological studies for ethalfluralin. However, EPA identified
potential acute effects (increased number of resorptions and increased
sternal and cranial variations seen in the rabbit developmental
toxicity study) for the population subgroup females, 13 to 49 years
old. In estimating acute dietary exposure of females, 13 to 49 years
old, EPA used food consumption information from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food
Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA relied
on anticipated residues derived from field trial data for certain
commodities (dry bean, peanuts, dry peas, soybeans and sunflower seed)
and assumed tolerance level residues for the remaining commodities,
including dill and potato. EPA assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT)
for all commodities.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the 1994-1996 and
1998 CSFII. As to residues in food, EPA relied on the same anticipated
residues and tolerances as in the acute exposure assessment and assumed
100 PCT for all commodities.
    iii. Cancer. EPA has classified ethalfluralin as a possible human
carcinogen, based on a dose-related increase in mammary gland
fibroadenomas observed in the rat carcinogenicity study. EPA evaluated
cancer risk using a quantitative approach based on a cancer potency
factor, or Q1*, of 8.9 x 10-2 (mg/kg/day)-1. As
to residues in food, EPA relied on the same estimates used in the acute
and chronic exposure assessments for all commodities except soybean,
watermelon and potato. For soybean and watermelon, EPA relied on
anticipated residues derived from the USDA Pesticide Data Program
monitoring data. The anticipated residue for potatoes was derived from
field trial data. EPA assumed 100 PCT for all commodities.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E)
of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the
anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual
levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA
relies on such information, EPA must pursuant tosection 408(f)(1) of
FFDCA require that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is
established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels
in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action,
EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by section
408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA and authorized under section 408(f)(1) of FFDCA.
Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the
date of issuance of this tolerance.
    EPA did not use any information on the actual percent of crops
treated with ethalfluralin, but rather assumed 100% of each crop would
be treated and contain residues of ethalfluralin.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. Drinking water monitoring
data collected by USDA's Pesticide Data Program (PDP) are available for
ethalfluralin for the years 2003, 2004 and 2005. During this time
period, a total of 1,253 water samples were collected and found to
contain no detectable residues of ethalfluralin. The limit of detection
(LOD) of the method used to collect the data was 45.4 parts per
trillion (ppt). EPA used a value equal to [frac12] the LOD or 22.7 ppt
(0.023 parts per billion (ppb)) to assess cancer risk from residues of
ethalfluralin in drinking water.

    The PDP drinking water monitoring data were considered to be
appropriate to assess cancer risk from the established and new uses of
ethalfluralin for the following reasons:
    i. Application rates for both existing and new uses are similar;
while peak drinking water estimates differ slightly from one crop to
another, the Agency's modeled drinking water numbers for the average of
yearly means did not differ significantly by crop, supporting the
notion that the existing monitoring data can support new uses;
    ii. The drinking water monitoring data were collected over multiple
years from a variety of states which include potential ethalfluralin
use areas;
    iii. The lack of findings of detectable residues is supported by
modeled drinking water estimates and by the environmental fate
properties of ethalfluralin (e.g., 6-hour half-life for aqueous
photolysis).
    EPA did not use the PDP data to evaluate acute or chronic risk from
residues of ethalfluralin in drinking water. PDP drinking water
monitoring data are not appropriate for use in acute dietary exposure
assessments, because the frequency of sample collection may not
accurately capture peak drinking water values. However, for the purpose
of chronic and cancer assessments, multiple years of data over multiple
seasons and reflecting a variety of sampling regions are considered to
provide an additional level of refinement over the use of modeled
drinking water estimates. In the case of ethalfluralin, since estimated
chronic risks based on more conservative modeled estimates are below
the Agency's LOC, the additional refinement provided by the PDP data is
not necessary. Therefore, for both the acute and chronic dietary
exposure assessments EPA relied on estimates of ethalfluralin residues
in drinking water developed through simulation or modeling taking into
account data on the environmental fate characteristics of
ethalfluralin. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models
used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm
.

    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of
ethalfluralin for acute exposures are estimated to be 11 ppb for
surface water and 0.02 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic
exposures are estimated to be 0.4 ppb for surface water and 0.02 ppb
for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 11 ppb was used to access
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 0.4 ppb was used to access
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Ethalfluralin is not
registered for use on any sites that would result in residential
exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to ethalfluralin and any
other substances and ethalfluralin does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that ethalfluralin has
a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information
regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative
.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional (``10X'') tenfold margin of safety for infants and
children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and
postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and
exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional
margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety factor. In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X
when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or,
if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional FQPA
safety factor value based on the use of traditional UFs and/or special
FQPA safety factors, as appropriate.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal
toxicology database for ethalfluralin includes a rat developmental
toxicity study, several rabbit developmental toxicity studies and a 3-
generation reproduction toxicity study in rats. There was no
quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased prenatal or postnatal
sensitivity in the rat developmental toxicity study or 3-generation
reproduction toxicity study in rats. The rabbit developmental toxicity
studies indicate the potential for ethalfluralin to induce skeletal
malformations at doses of >= 150 mg/kg/day. These effects were seen in
the presence of maternal toxicity.
    Although there is evidence of increased qualitative susceptibility
in young in the developmental toxicity studies in rabbits, there are no
residual uncertainties and the degree of concern is low. The
developmental effects seen at the LOAEL of 150 mg/kg/day are slight
(mainly sternal variations in one or two fetuses, incomplete cranial
development in 2 fetuses and a slight increase in resorptions). There
is a clear NOAEL for these effects and the effects occurred in the
presence of maternal toxicity. Additionally, the dose used for risk
assessment purposes is 75 mg/kg/day, the NOAEL from the developmental
studies in rabbits. Use of this NOAEL for risk assessment is protective
of any potential developmental effects.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that it
would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor
to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for ethalfluralin is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that ethalfluralin is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. Although there is qualitative evidence of increased
susceptibility in the prenatal developmental studies in rabbits, the
risk assessment team did not identify any residual uncertainties after
establishing toxicity endpoints and traditional UFs to be used in the
risk assessment of ethalfluralin. The degree of concern for prenatal
and/or postnatal toxicity is low.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases.

The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT
and tolerance-level or anticipated residues derived using reliable
field trial data. Conservative ground and surface water modeling
estimates were used to assess threshold acute and chronic risks. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
ethalfluralin.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing
aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and
cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable UFs. For
linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional
cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term,
and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to
the LOC to ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all
applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to ethalfluralin will occupy less than 1% of the aPAD for females 13 to
49 years old, the population group of concern for acute exposure to
ethalfluralin.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to
ethalfluralin from food and water will utilize less than 1% of the cPAD
for children, 1 to 2 years old, the population group with the greatest
estimated exposure. There are no residential uses for ethalfluralin
that result in chronic residential exposure to ethalfluralin.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Ethalfluralin is not
registered for use on any sites that would result in residential
exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from
food and water.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Ethalfluralin
is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential
exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from
food and water, which do not exceed the Agency's LOC.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for the cancer risk assessment, EPA
has concluded that exposure to ethalfluralin from food and water will
result in a lifetime cancer risk of 2 x 10-6 for the U.S.
population. This risk estimate is based, in part, on the conservative
assumption that 100% of all crops for which ethalfluralin is registered
or proposed for registration are treated. Additional refinement using
PCT estimates would result in a lower estimate of dietary cancer risk.
    EPA generally considers cancer risks in the range of
10-6 or less to be negligible. The precision which can be
assumed for cancer risk estimates is best described by rounding to the
nearest integral order of magnitude on the log scale; for example,
risks falling between 3.16 x 10-7 and 3.16 x 10-6
are expressed as risks in the range of 10-6. Considering the
precision with which cancer hazard can be estimated, the
conservativeness of low-dose linear extrapolation, and the rounding
procedure described above, cancer risk should generally not be assumed
to exceed the benchmark LOC of the range of 10-6 until the
calculated risk exceeds approximately 3 x 10-6. Since the
calculated cancer risk for ethalfluralin falls below this level,
estimated cancer risk is considered to be negligible.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to ethalfluralin residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology is available to enforce the
tolerance expression. Two gas chromatograph (GC) methods, Methods I and
II, both with electron capture detection (ECD) are listed in the
Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM, Vol. II, section 180.416). Methods I
and II are applicable for the analysis of ethalfluralin residues in/on
plant and animal commodities, respectively. The limits of detection
(LODs) are 0.01 and < 0.01 ppm for methods I and II, respectively.

B. International Residue Limits

    There are currently no Codex, Canadian, or Mexican Maximum Residue
Limits (MRLs) established on the commodities associated with these
petitions.

V. Conclusion

    EPA has determined that the proposed tolerance on crambe is
unnecessary, since, pursuant to 40 CFR 180.1(g), the tolerance being
established for rapeseed also applies to residues of ethalfluralin on
crambe. The rapeseed tolerance also covers residues of ethalfluralin in
or on canola seed. Since there is no longer a need for the canola
tolerance, EPA is removing this tolerance as requested in IR-4's
petition.
    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
ethalfluralin, N-ethyl-N-(2-methyl-2-propenyl)-2,6-dinitro-4-
(trifluoromethyl)benzenamine, in or on dill, dried leaves; dill, fresh
leaves; mustard, seed; potato; and rapeseed, seed at 0.05 ppm. The
current tolerance of 0.05 ppm on canola is removed.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 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).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments,

on the relationship between the national government and the States or
tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined
that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6,
2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This rule does not impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law
104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: November 26, 2007.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 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. Section 180.416 is amended by removing the current tolerance on
``Canola, seed'' and alphabetically adding the following commodities to
the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec. 180.416  Ethalfluralin; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Dill, dried leaves...................................               0.05
Dill, fresh leaves...................................               0.05
Mustard, seed........................................               0.05
                                * * * * *
Potato...............................................               0.05
Rapeseed, seed.......................................               0.05
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-23578 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 33523]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12410]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL16-69-000, QF16-362-001, QF16-363-001, et al.]

 Windham Solar LLC, Allco Finance Limited; Notice of Petition for
Enforcement

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             EL16-69-000                         QF16-375-001
            QF16-362-001                         QF16-376-001
            QF16-363-001                         QF16-377-001
            QF16-364-001                         QF16-378-001
            QF16-365-001                         QF16-379-001
            QF16-366-001                         QF16-380-001
            QF16-367-001                         QF16-381-001
            QF16-368-001                         QF16-382-001
            QF16-369-001                         QF16-383-001
            QF16-370-001                         QF16-384-001
            QF16-371-001                         QF16-385-001
            QF16-372-001                         QF16-386-001
            QF16-373-001                         QF16-387-001
            QF16-374-001
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that on May 19, 2016, pursuant to section 210(h)(2)(B)
of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), 16
U.S.C. 824a-3(h), Windham Solar LLC and Allco Finance Limited filed a
Petition for Enforcement requesting the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) exercise its authority and initiate enforcement
action against the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority to
remedy its implementation of PURPA, all as more fully explained in the
petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 9, 2016.

    Dated: May 20, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-12410 Filed 5-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51666-51667]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18081]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10111-01-OMS]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) approval of the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ) request to revise/modify certain of its EPA-authorized programs
to allow electronic reporting.

DATES: EPA approves the authorized program revisions/modifications as
of August 23, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley M. Miller, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Information Management, Mail Stop 2824T,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure
that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper
counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving,
electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to
EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA
approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on
consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the
state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic
reporting. Additionally, Sec.  3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and
modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option
of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures
available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An
application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the
state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to
implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered
by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems
that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.
    On June 23, 2022, the Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ) submitted an application titled National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Electronic Reporting Tool (NeT)
for revisions/modifications to its EPA-approved programs under title 40
CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed MDEQ's request to
revise/modify its EPA-authorized programs and, based on this review,
EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of
authorized program revisions/modifications set out in 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's
decision to approve MDEQ's request to revise/modify its following EPA-
authorized programs to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR is being
published in the Federal Register:

    Part 123: EPA-Administered Permit Programs: the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Reporting under 40
CFR 122 and 125
    Part 403: General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New
Sources of Pollution Reporting under 40 CFR 403

    MDEQ was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application
with respect to the authorized programs listed above.

    Dated: August 17, 2022.
Jennifer Campbell,
Director, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2022-18081 Filed 8-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 193)]
[Notices]
[Page 51578-51579]
[DOCID:fr07oc09-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. AC09-179-000, AC09-179-001]

XTO Energy Inc.; Notice of Filing

September 30, 2009.
    Take notice that on September 4, 2009, and September 17, 2009, XTO
Energy Inc. submitted requests for the waiver of the requirement to
file the FERC Form No. 6 from December 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as

appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or
before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not
necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other
than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: October 30, 2009.

Kimberly Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-24127 Filed 10-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P