[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 16, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3333-3337]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00728]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0038; FRL-9374-3]

Spiromesifen; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
spiromesifen in or on tea, dried. Bayer CropScience requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective January 16, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before March 18, 2013, 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: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0038, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Gaines, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email 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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, 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-2012-0038 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
March 18, 2013. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    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 (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0038, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of April 4, 2012 (77 FR 20334-20337) (FRL-
9340-4), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
1E7924) by Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Dr.,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.607 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of
spiromesifen, (2-oxo-3-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-
4-yl 3,3-dimethylbutanoate) and its enol metabolite (4-hydroxy-3-
(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-2-one), in or on tea,
dried at 50 parts per million (ppm). That document referenced a summary
of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is
available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the notice of filing. Based upon
review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has changed the
tolerance for tea, dried from 50 ppm to 40 ppm. The reason for this
change is explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue * *
*.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for spiromesifen including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with spiromesifen 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.
    Spiromesifen was classified as having low acute toxicity via the
oral, dermal and inhalation routes of exposure. It was neither an eye
nor dermal irritant, but showed moderate potential as a skin contact
sensitizer. In short- and long-term animal toxicity tests, the critical
effects observed were loss of body weight, adrenal effects
(discoloration, decrease in fine vesticulation, and the presence of
cytoplasmic eosinophilia in zona fasciculata cells), thyroid effects
(increased thyroid stimulating hormone, increased thyroxine binding
capacity, decreased T3 and T4 levels, colloidal alteration and thyroid
follicular cell hypertrophy), liver effects (increased alkaline
phosphatase, alanine transaminase (ALT) and decreased cholesterol, and
triglycerides), and spleen effects (atrophy, decreased spleen cell
count, and increased macrophages). There were no developmental or
reproductive effects of concern following oral administration of
spiromesifen in rats or rabbits. EPA concluded that spiromesifen is not
likely to be carcinogenic to humans based on a lack of evidence of
cancer in bioassays in rats and mice. There were no in vivo or in vitro
mutagenic effects in mutagenicity testing with spiromesifen.
Spiromesifen is not considered a neurotoxic chemical based on the
chemical's mode of action and the available data from multiple studies,
including acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by spiromesifen 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 document ``Spiromesifen: Human-Health Risk
Assessment for Request for Tolerance without U.S. Registration in/on
Tea.'' at pages 20 to 24 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0038.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. 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 spiromesifen used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

 Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Spiromesifen for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (General population  Not applicable......  None...............  An endpoint of concern
 including infants and children).                                              attributable to a single dose was
                                                                               not identified. An aRfD was not
                                                                               established.
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL= 2.2 mg/kg/day  Chronic RfD = 0.022  2-generation reproduction study in
                                   UFA = 10X...........   mg/kg/day..          rats. The parental systemic LOAEL
                                   UFH = 10X...........  cPAD = 0.022 mg/kg/   = 8.81 mg/kg/day based on
                                   FQPA SF = 1X........   day.                 significantly decreased spleen
                                                                               weight (absolute and relative in
                                                                               parental females and F1 males)
                                                                               and significantly decreased
                                                                               growing ovarian follicles in
                                                                               females.
Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days)   None................  None...............  No dermal, systemic, or
 and Intermediate-term (1 to 6                                                 developmental concerns.
 months).
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30     Inhalation (or oral)  LOC for MOE = 30     Subchronic (30-day) inhalation
 days) and Intermediate-Term (1     study NOAEL = 21.1    (3X interspecies     toxicity study in rats & 5-day
 to 6 months).                      mg/kg/day             and 10X              inhalation toxicity study in
                                    (inhalation           intraspecies         rats.
                                    absorption rate =     extrapolations).    LOAEL (5-day) = 134.2 mg/kg/day
                                    100%).                                     based on the clinical signs
                                   HEC = 0.06 mg/L.....                        (tremors, clonic-tonic
                                   HED = 1.42 mg/kg/bw/                        convulsions, reduced activity,
                                    day.                                       bradypnea, labored breathing,
                                                                               vocalization, avoidance reaction,
                                                                               giddiness, piloerection, limp,
                                                                               emaciation, cyanosis, squatted
                                                                               posture, apathy, salivation,
                                                                               gross pathology (dark red areas
                                                                               or foci in the lungs, bloated
                                                                               stomachs, and pale liver), and
                                                                               decreased spleen weights.
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)      Spiromesifen has been classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to
                                                                      humans.''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population-adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among
  members of the human population (intraspecies). HEC = human human-equivalent concentration. HED = human human-
  equivalent dose.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to spiromesifen, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing spiromesifen tolerances in 40
CFR 180.607. EPA assessed dietary exposures from spiromesifen 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 effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for spiromesifen; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 Cumulative Survey of Food Intake by Individuals, CSFII. As to
residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues for all
commodities except for the leafy-green and leafy-Brassica vegetable
subgroups (4A, 4B, and 5B), spearmint and peppermint tops and oil, and
tea. For these commodities, residues were also based on tolerance
levels; however, a correction factor was applied to the tolerance
levels to account for BSN 2060-4-hydroxymethyl metabolites of
spiromesifen included in the risk assessment for these commodities. The
additional metabolites, BSN 2060-4-hydroxymethyl and BSN 2060-4-
hydroxymethyl-glucoside, were observed in the metabolism studies of
lettuce only, comprising 21% of the total radioactive residues. Since
the toxicity of the BSN 2060-4-hydroxymethyl metabolites is expected to
be comparable to the parent compound, it was included in the risk
assessment for leafy crops (including tea, subgroups 4A, 4B, and 5B and
spearmint and peppermint tops and oil). To account for this additional
exposure, the recommended tolerance level was multiplied by a
correction factor of 1.3X, where 1.3 = (Metabolites in Risk
Assessment)/(Metabolites in Tolerance Expression; concentrations from
the lettuce metabolism study). Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM)
7.81 default processing factors and 100 percent crop treated were
assumed.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that spiromesifen does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for spiromesifen. As discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii.,
for the leafy-greens and leafy Brassica greens subgroups (4A, 4B, and
5B) and spearmint and peppermint tops and oil, and tea, the residue
values were adjusted upward to account for the metabolite BSN 2060-4-
hydroxymethyl (free and conjugated).
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for spiromesifen in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of spiromesifen. 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 Provisional Cranberry Model and Screening
Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models the estimated drinking
water concentrations (EDWCs) of spiromesifen for chronic exposures for
non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 188 ppb for surface water
and 86 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered

into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment,
the water concentration of value 188 ppb was used to assess 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).
    Spiromesifen is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Indoor and outdoor uses for the
control of mites and whiteflies on ornamental plants in and around
areas such as parks, golf courses, recreational areas, and residential
and commercial buildings. EPA assessed residential exposure using the
following assumptions: Residential handler inhalation exposure was
assessed for adults mixing/loading/applying spiromesifen using handheld
equipment to ornamentals. Details for the residential risk exposure and
risk assessment are contained in the EPA public docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-
0038 at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``Spiromesifen: Human-
Health Risk Assessment for Request for Tolerance Without U.S.
Registration in/on Tea'' on pp.15-19.
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/USEPA-OPP-HED_Residential%20SOPs_Oct2012.pdf.
    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.''
    EPA has not found spiromesifen to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and spiromesifen does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
spiromesifen does not have 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 Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) 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 (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of
increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits following in utero and/or
postnatal exposure to spiromesifen. In the prenatal developmental
toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and in the 2-generation
reproduction study in rats, developmental toxicity to the offspring
occurred at equivalent or higher doses than parental toxicity.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for spiromesifen is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that spiromesifen is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that spiromesifen results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to spiromesifen in drinking water. EPA used
similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication exposure
of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
spiromesifen.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
spiromesifen is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
spiromesifen from food and water will utilize 78% of the cPAD for all
infants (<1 year old), the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
spiromesifen is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Because no
short-term adverse effect was identified, spiromesifen is not expected
to pose a short-term risk.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Because no intermediate-term adverse effect was identified,
spiromesifen is not expected to pose an intermediate-term risk.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, spiromesifen is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    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 spiromesifen residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (high-performance liquid
chromatography/tandem mass spectroscopy (HPLC/MS/MS)/Method BS001-P09-
01 is available to enforce the tolerance expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for spiromesifen in/on dried
tea.

C. Response to Comments

    There were no comments received.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based on the analysis of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
revised the proposed tolerance for tea, dried from 50 ppm to 40 ppm.
EPA revised this tolerance level based on the highest-average field
trial residue level and a processing factor for black tea.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of spiromesifen,
(2-oxo-3-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-4-yl 3,3-
dimethylbutanoate) its enol metabolite (4-hydroxy-3-(2,4,6-
trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-2-one), in or on tea, dried at
40 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
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 final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) 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 FFDCA section 408(d), 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 FFDCA section 408(n)(4). 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 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final 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) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    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) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
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
the rule in the Federal Register. This action 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: January 4, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    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. In Sec.  180.607, the table in paragraph (a)(1) is amended by
adding, alphabetically, the commodity ``Tea, dry'' to read as follows:

Sec.  180.607  Spiromesifen; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Tea, dry....................................................          40

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-00728 Filed 1-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45982-45983]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17641]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-2634-000]

Solar Star Lost Hills, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Solar Star Lost Hills, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 31, 2021.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 11, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-17641 Filed 8-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 136 (Friday, July 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46133-46135]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16722]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78281; File No. SR-FINRA-2016-025]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Fee for the Regulatory Element of
Continuing Education

July 11, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 1, 2016, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has
designated the proposed rule change as ``establishing or changing a
due, fee or other charge'' under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon receipt of this filing by the Commission. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA is proposing to amend Section 4 of Schedule A to the FINRA
By-Laws to address the transition of the Regulatory Element of
Continuing Education (``CE'') to the FINRA CE Online System[supreg].
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    As part of the transition to CE Online, FINRA is phasing out test
center delivery of the CE Regulatory Element.\5\ Specifically,
effective July 1, 2016, the option to complete the Regulatory Element
at a test center will no longer be available, and participants must
complete their session using the CE Online System with the exception of
participants who, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act,\6\
may need accommodations in completing their CE session due to a
disability. Participants who need such accommodations may apply for an
accommodation and complete their CE Regulatory Element session at a
test center.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Regulatory Notice 15-28 (August 2015); see also
Information Notice, May 16, 2016 (Elimination of Continuing
Education Delivery at Testing Centers).
    \6\ Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101-336,
104 Stat. 328 (1990).
    \7\ See FINRA's CE Online Delivery Accommodation Web page,
available at http://www.finra.org/industry/accommodations-continuing-education-ce-online-participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, pursuant to Section 4(f) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-
Laws, FINRA assesses a session fee of $100 to each participant for each
scheduled session to complete the Regulatory Element at a test center,
and it assesses a session fee of $55 to each participant who completes
the Regulatory Element through the CE Online System. In conjunction
with phasing out test center delivery of the Regulatory Element, FINRA
is proposing to amend Section 4(f) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws
to assess a session fee of $55 for the Regulatory Element regardless of
whether the session is completed at a test center or through the CE
Online System. However, as noted above, only participants who apply for
an accommodation would be eligible to complete their CE Regulatory
Element session at a test center.
    In addition, Section 4(c) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws
includes additional fees for taking the Regulatory Element session
outside the United States, failing to appear on time for an appointment
or cancelling or rescheduling an appointment. FINRA is proposing to
make technical changes to Sections 4(c)(3) and (4) of Schedule A to the
FINRA By-Laws to clarify that such additional fees are only applicable
to test center-based sessions. Further, because these additional fees
are based on the initial session fee, which FINRA is proposing to
reduce, the proposed rule change would result in a reduction of the
total fees charged under these sections for completing the Regulatory
Element at a test center.
    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and
other persons using any facility or system that FINRA operates or
controls. The proposed rule change reduces the session fee for
participants who are eligible to complete their CE Regulatory Element
session at a test center, and it aligns the session fee for such
participants with the session fee for participants who complete their
session through the CE Online System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As described above,
participants who need an accommodation pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act may apply for an accommodation and complete their CE
Regulatory Element session at a test center. FINRA is proposing to
reduce the session fee for a test center-based session of the CE
Regulatory Element for such participants.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\10\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If
the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved
or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2016-025 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2016-025. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,

Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2016-025, and should
be submitted on or before August 5, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16722 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


IMPORTANT NOTE TO USER:

This OMB form has been recreated in WP6.0 by OPPTS staff. The margins and lines are NOT block protected, so you must fill the form with caution, paying attention to any shifting of the existing text. The following tips should make this a simple task:

 Fill in the spaces by using the type over command. Otherwise you'll have to delete a space for each letter you add.

 Use the same font ( Times New Roman 8pt).

 Do not change table lines ( although you can delete an extra space line to provide more space elsewhere.

 It is not recommended that you convert this form to WP5.1, some of these features are not available in WP5.1, so the text will scramble. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA/ OECA/ OC 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2060 0417 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes XG No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title NESHAP: Oil and Natural Gas Production ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart HH)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR# 1788.03 9. Keywords Oil, Natural gas, Production, Glycol dehydration unit, Reboiler, Custody transfer, Associated equipment 10. Abstract Respondents are owners and operators of facilities in the oil and natural gas production industry. Respondents would submit notification and information indicating the performance of air pollution controls. This information is needed to ensure compliance with the rule.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 498 b. Total annual responses 996 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 10 % c. Total hours requested 29,489 d. Current OMB inventory 27,298 e. Difference 2,191 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2,191 2. Adjustment 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 16 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 551 c. Total annualized cost requested 567 d. Current OMB inventory 355 e. Difference 212 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 212 2. Adjustment 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. _ P_ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Dan Chadwick Phone: ( 202) 564 7054 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( i) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Michael S. Alushin, Director Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division Office of Compliance Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( i) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( i) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 83 (Tuesday, April 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18335-18336]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08739]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of New Approval of Information Collection: Safety Statement
Requirement for Manufacturers of Small Unmanned Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval of a new information collection.
The collection involves manufacturers of small unmanned aircraft
providing a safety statement to owners of the UAS they produce. This is
a statutory requirement. To minimize the burden on small businesses,
the FAA has developed an example safety statement that can be used to
satisfy the requirement.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by July 1, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara
Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway,
Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Hall by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-XXXX.
    Title: Section 2203 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act
of 2016 Safety Statement Requirement for Manufacturers of Small
Unmanned Aircraft.
    Form Numbers: N/A.
    Type of Review: This is a new information collection request.
    Background: Section 2203 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security
Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114-90) requires manufacturers of small unmanned
aircraft to make available to the owner a safety statement that
satisfies requirements detailed in that section. The requirements
include:
    1. Information about, and sources of, laws and regulations
applicable to small unmanned aircraft;
    2. Recommendations for using small unmanned aircraft in a manner
that promotes the safety of person and property;
    3. The date that the safety statement was created or last modified;
and
    4. Language approved by the Administrator regarding the following:
    a. A person may operate the small unmanned aircraft as a model
aircraft (as defined in section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform
Act of 2012 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note)) or otherwise in accordance with
Federal Aviation Administration authorization or regulation, including
requirements for the completion of any applicable airman test.
    b. The definition of a model aircraft under section 336 of the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note).
    c. The requirements regarding the operation of a model aircraft
under section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (49
U.S.C. 40101 note).
    d. The Administrator may pursue enforcement action against a person
operating model aircraft who endangers the safety of the national
airspace system.
    By statute, manufacturers will be required to make a safety
statement

available to small UAS owners. This manufacturer insert serves as an
example safety statement that UAS manufacturers may use. The FAA
provides an example safety statement and guidance to assist
manufacturers to comply with this requirement.
    Respondents: Manufacturers of small UAS sold in the U.S.
(Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) reports
there are 471 active manufacturers in February 2019.)
    Frequency: Updates as required due to changes in Agency
regulations, rules, or policy.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 40 Hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: Estimated cost per respondent is
$3,200.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 22, 2019.
Erik W. Amend,
Manager, Executive Office, AUS-10, UAS Integration Office.
[FR Doc. 2019-08739 Filed 4-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	PM10-2.5 Point Source Analysis

Evaluation of Proposed Suitability Test Conditions 1 and 2.

FROM:	Lewis Weinstock

		Ambient Air Monitoring Group (C304-06)

		Air Quality Assessment Division

		Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

TO:		Dockets

		EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0018, EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017

Following the completion of the monitoring proposal, EPA performed
additional analyses to determine the relationship of industrial point
sources to certain criteria in the proposed PM10-2.5 monitoring network
design for siting of NAAQS-comparable monitoring sites (see 71 FR 2782,
Comparability of PM10-2.5 data, conditions 1 and 2).  The 2002 National
Emission Inventory (NEI) point source data for coarse particle emissions
(PM10 minus PM2.5 emissions) was used for this analysis.

The NEI contained 3,601 sources emitting over 10 tons per year of
primary PM10-2.5.  These data records were filtered for sources emitting
at least 100 tons per year and EPA noted 645 industrial point sources in
the inventory meeting this criteria. Of these 645 sources, EPA noted
that 74 sources (12 percent) were located inside the boundaries of
urbanized areas meeting the 100,000 person population requirement
(condition 1), and 571 sources (88 percent) were located outside of the
urbanized area boundary.  Of the total PM10-2.5 emissions associated
with these 645 sources (206,418 tons per year), 10 percent of the
emissions (19,703 tons per year) were from sources located inside the
boundaries of urbanized areas of 100,000 population or more, and 90
percent (186,715 tons per year) were from sources located outside of the
urbanized area boundary.  This analysis indicated a weak correlation
between the proposed urbanized area criterion and coarse particle
industrial point sources in that the majority of significant PM10-2.5
sources were not included by the first suitability test condition.

Of the 74 sources located inside urbanized areas with population of at
least 100,000 persons, EPA noted that approximately half (38 of 74, 51
percent) were located in block groups of at least 500 people per square
mile (condition 2).  The presence of non-residential industrial zones
within the 36 block groups with sources that did not meet the 500 people
per square mile criterion is likely a factor, in some cases reducing the
population density of the whole block group below the proposed 500
person per square mile cutoff even though some parts of the block group
may be above this population density.  Combining the effects of
suitability conditions 1 and 2, only 38 out of 645 sources (6 percent)
with PM10-2.5 emissions of 100 tons per year or greater would be located
in areas potentially suitable for NAAQS-comparable PM10-2.5 ambient
monitors (still subject to the three remaining proposed conditions in
the suitability test).

EPA also considered the available information on how many people reside
near included and excluded sources of PM10-2.5.  Of 901,647 people
living in the same block group as any of the 100-ton sources of
PM10-2.5, only 5 percent live in a block group with one the 38 included
sources.  Of 8,877,317 people living in the same zip code area as any of
the 100-ton sources, only 11 percent live in zip codes with one of the
38 included sources.

EPA performed several individual-source analyses to investigate the
distribution of households and other indicators of
population-orientation, such as schools, in areas surrounding
significant point sources that were located outside of the boundaries of
urbanized areas of at least 100,000 persons or more.  In these case
studies, EPA noted dense clusters of households and the presence of
multiple schools within a 2.5 kilometer radius of these PM10-2.5
sources, ranging from 255 tons per year to 826 tons per year.  Maps of
these sources are attached.

Based on this analysis, EPA concludes that the first two conditions of
the proposed suitability test (urbanized area population, block group
population density) would not be effective enough in identifying the
areas within which populations could be exposed to ambient PM mixes
dominated by major industrial sources of coarse particles, because
people located around the majority of coarse particle industrial sources
would be in areas not meeting the first two parts of the suitability
test.  EPA notes that if sources with emissions of less than 100 tons
were also considered, the situation might be even more extreme.  Tables
of data relating to emission sources, urbanized areas, and MSAs are
attached.

EPA considered reducing the 100,000 person urbanized area population
cut-off to 50,000 and using an MSA population cutoff of 50,000 instead
of a cutoff on urbanized area population.  In the former, about 100
additional smaller MSAs would be eligible to have monitors that could be
compared to the NAAQS, but 550 major industrial sources of PM10-2.5
would still lie outside the eligible areas.


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:To Mr. Zeller:

I am writing to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. As an individual consumer, I am requesting that the comment period for the above Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days (from its current 75-day period, to 180 days).

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule affects my ability to plan for the future when it comes to tobacco harm reduction (I have used electronic cigarettes to quit smoking). I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I am a disabled person, and wish to be thorough, yet take care of my medical needs,  I have already spent many hours researching, but this takes time. I know that the FDA took many years to develop this Proposed Rule, so I do not think it unreasonable to allow the public six months to comment on it. This is my only opportunity, as a consumer, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5584-5587]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01706]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 2020 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0760; Product Identifier 2019-NE-18-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Thales AVS France SAS Global
Positioning System/Satellite Based Augmentation System Receivers

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Thales AVS France SAS (Thales) Global Positioning System/
Satellite Based Augmentation System (GPS/SBAS) receivers installed on
airplanes and helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by reports
that Thales GPS/SBAS receivers provided, under certain conditions,
erroneous outputs on aircraft positions. This proposed AD would require
the installation of a software update to the aircraft navigation
database and insertion of a change to the applicable airplane flight
manual (AFM). The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 16,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12 140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact: Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road,
Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thales AVS France SAS, 75-77
Avenue Marcel Dassault, 33700 M[eacute]rignac--France, Tel: +33 (0)5 24
44 77 40, www.thalesgroup.com; or ATR-GIE Avions de Transport
R[eacute]gional, 1, All[eacute]e Pierre Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex,
France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21; fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18;
exception occurred on : 2020-01706.htm
exception occurred on : 2020-01706.htm
email aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com. You may view this
service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch,
1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0760; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI),
the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk Gustafson, Aerospace Engineer,
Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2019-0760;
Product Identifier 2019-NE-18-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive
verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by
its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552),
CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to
this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you
clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page
of your submission containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat
such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will
not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing
CBI should be sent to Kirk Gustafson, Aerospace Engineer, Boston ACO
Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803. Any
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has
issued EASA AD No. 2019-0004, dated January 11, 2019, corrected on
January 17, 2019 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to address
an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states, in
pertinent part:

    It has been determined that, in SBAS areas, in specific
conditions of the GPS satellite constellation in line of sight to
the aircraft, the Thales Topstar 200 LPV GPS/SBAS

receiver may provide an erroneous position on its outputs, which may
not be detected by the integrity check. Depending on the aircraft
installation, this error may not be noticed by the flight crew.
    This condition, if not corrected, could possibly compromise the
safety margins when the receiver is used for Localizer Performance
with Vertical guidance (LPV) and/or RNP-AR (Required Navigation
Performance--Authorization Required) operations.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires removal
from the navigation database of LPV procedures and all RNP-AR
procedures in SBAS areas, listed in the SIL. To ensure a reset of
all the GPS computations which may contribute to the erroneous GPS
position output, this AD also requires, for certain ATR aeroplanes
(see Note 1 of this [EASA] AD), amendment of the applicable AFM.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0760.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Task 31-61-00-800-802, ``2. FMS Database Update
for Multifunction Display (MFD)'' of the Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation,
AMM SA S76D-AMM-000, 31-61-00, dated November 30, 2017. This Task
provides instructions for updating the MFD on affected Sikorsky
aircraft.
    The FAA also reviewed ATR72 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) Job
Instruction Cards, Doc. No. 45-11-00 LDG 10030-004, dated June 1, 2018,
and ATR42-400/500 Series AMM Job Instruction Cards, Doc. No. 45-11-00
LDG 10030-004, dated July 1, 2018. These service documents provide
instructions on updating the navigation databases installed on affected
ATR airplanes.
    The FAA also reviewed Thales Service Information Letter (SIL) Doc.
No. THAV/SIL-1308, Issue 7, dated September 28, 2018. The SIL describes
procedures to upload navigational database using Thales PMAT software
on affected ATR airplanes.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by EASA and is approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement
with the European Community, EASA has notified the FAA of the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced
above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the Agency evaluated all
the relevant information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other
products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require installation of a software update to
the aircraft navigation database and insertion of a change to the
applicable AFM.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 45 Thales GPS/SBAS
receivers installed on, but not limited to, GIE Avions de Transport
R[eacute]gional model ATR42 airplanes and Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
model S-76D helicopters of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update navigation database for GPS/     1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85          $3,825
 SBAS receiver.                          hour = $85.
Update AFM............................  3 work-hours x $85 per                 0             255          11,475
                                         hour = $255.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Thales AVS France SAS: Docket No. FAA-2019-0760; Product Identifier
2019-NE-18-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by March 16, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Thales AVS France SAS (Thales) Global
Positioning System/Satellite Based Augmentation System (GPS/SBAS)
receivers, Topstar 200 LPV, part numbers (P/Ns) C17149JA02 and
C17149HA01. These GPS/SBAS receivers are installed on, but not
limited to, ATR-GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional (``ATR'')
model ATR42 and ATR72 airplanes and Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
model S-76D helicopters, respectively.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 3457, Global
Positioning System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports that Thales GPS/SBAS receivers
provided, under certain conditions, erroneous outputs on aircraft
positions. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent erroneous aircraft
position outputs from the Thales GPS/SBAS receivers. The unsafe
condition, if not addressed, could result in controlled flight into
terrain and loss of the aircraft.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) For operators of affected ATR model ATR42 and ATR72
airplanes:
    (i) Update the aircraft's navigation database within 30 days
after the effective date of this AD using the software upload
instructions, as applicable, in the following:
    (A) ATR72 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) Job Instruction
Cards, Doc. No. 45-11-00 LDG 10030-004, dated June 1, 2018.
    (B) ATR42-400/500 Series AMM Job Instruction Cards, Doc. No. 45-
11-00 LDG 10030-004, dated July 1, 2018.
    (C) Thales Service Information Letter (SIL) Doc. No. THAV/SIL-
1308, Issue 7, dated September 28, 2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (2) For operators of affected ATR model ATR42 and ATR72
airplanes:
    (i) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, amend
Section 1.2 ``Each Flight Checks'' of the pre-flight section in the
applicable airplane flight manual by inserting the change shown in
Figure 1 and Figure 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (ii) Before each flight, power cycle the Thales GPS/SBAS
receiver unit.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31JA20.000

    (3) For operators of Sikorsky S-76D helicopters, within 30 days
after the effective date of this AD, update the aircraft's
navigation database using the instructions in TASK 31-61-00-800-802,
``2. FMS Database Update for Multifunction Display (MFD)'' of the
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, AMM SA S76D-AMM-000, 31-61-00, dated
November 30, 2017.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Boston ACO Branch, 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 Boston ACO Branch, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.
    (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.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kirk Gustafson,
Aerospace Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA, 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2019-0004, dated January 11, 2019 (corrected on January 17, 2019),
for more information. You may examine the EASA AD in the AD docket
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating it in Docket No. FAA-2019-0760.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124
Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or 203-
416-4299; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thales AVS
France SAS, 75-77 Avenue Marcel Dassault, 33700 M[eacute]rignac--
France, Tel: +33 (0)5 24 44 77 40, www.thalesgroup.com; or ATR-GIE
Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional, 1, All[eacute]e Pierre Nadot,
31712 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21; fax
exception occurred on : 2020-01706.htm
exception occurred on : 2020-01706.htm
+33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18; email aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com. You may view this referenced service information at
the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on January 27, 2020.
Robert J. Ganley,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-01706 Filed 1-30-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P