[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 191 (Thursday, October 2, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59468-59471]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23472]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0656; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-224-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; rescission.

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

SUMMARY: We propose to rescind Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010-08-08,
which applies to certain Airbus Model A330-243, -341, -342, and -343
airplanes. AD 2010-08-08 requires deactivating the water scavenge

automatic operation and revising the Limitations section of the
airplane flight manual (AFM). We also propose to rescind AD 2011-06-04,
which applies to certain Model A330-243F airplanes. AD 2011-06-04
requires revising the Limitations section of the AFM. We issued ADs
2010-08-08 and 2011-06-04 to prevent fuel flow restriction, caused by
ice, resulting in a possible engine surge or stall condition, and the
engine being unable to provide the commanded thrust. Since we issued
ADs 2010-08-08 and 2011-06-04, we have determined that the water
scavenge system (WSS) operation does not induce any risk of fuel feed
system (including the engine) blockage by ice on the pipework or pump
inlets. We have also determined that the risk of fuel flow restriction
by ice at the fuel oil heat exchanger (FOHE) interface on airplanes
equipped with Trent 700 engines is now addressed by a re-designed FOHE,
which incorporates enhanced anti-icing and de-icing performance.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 17,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced 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
425-227-1221.

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-2014-
0656; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0656;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-224-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On April 1, 2010, we issued AD 2010-08-08, Amendment 39-16263 (75
FR 19196, April 14, 2010), for Airbus Model A330-243, -341, -342, and -
343 airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines, on which
Airbus Modification 56966MP16199 has been embodied in production or
Airbus Service Bulletin A330-28-3105 has been embodied in service. AD
2010-08-08 requires deactivating the water scavenge automatic operation
and revising the Limitations section of the AFM. AD 2010-08-08 resulted
from reports of ice being shed, causing a temporary blockage in the
engine fuel system. We issued AD 2010-08-08 to prevent fuel flow
restriction caused by ice, resulting in a possible engine surge or
stall condition, and the engine being unable to provide the commanded
thrust.
    On February 28, 2011, we issued AD 2011-06-04, Amendment 39-16628
(76 FR 13075, March 10, 2011), for Airbus Model A330-243F airplanes, on
which Airbus Modification 56966H16199 has been embodied in production
or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-28-3105 has been embodied in service.
AD 2011-06-04 requires revising the Limitations section of the AFM. AD
2011-06-04 resulted from reports of ice being shed, causing a temporary
blockage in the engine fuel system. We issued AD 2011-06-04 to prevent
fuel flow restriction caused by ice, resulting in a possible engine
surge or stall condition, and the engine being unable to provide the
commanded thrust.

Actions Since ADs 2010-08-08, Amendment 39-16263 (75 FR 19196, April
14, 2010), and 2011-06-04, Amendment 39-16628 (76 FR 13075, March 10,
2011), Were Issued

    Since we issued ADs 2010-08-08, Amendment 39-16263 (75 FR 19196,
April 14, 2010), and 2011-06-04, Amendment 39-16628 (76 FR 13075, March
10, 2011), we have determined that the WSS operation does not induce
any risk of fuel feed system (including the engine) blockage by ice on
the pipework or pump inlets.
    We have also determined that the risk of fuel flow restriction by
ice at the FOHE interface on airplanes equipped with Trent 700 engines
is now addressed by a re-designed FOHE (Airbus Modification 200218),
which incorporates enhanced anti-icing and de-icing performance. The
re-designed FOHE was required to be installed on all Trent 700 engines
by FAA AD 2010-07-01, Amendment 39-16244 (75 FR 15326, March 29, 2010).
    EASA has issued Airworthiness Directive 2010-0132-CN, dated October
14, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to cancel EASA AD 2010-
0132R1, dated June 10, 2013, which superseded EASA AD 2010-0132, dated
June 28, 2010. The requirements of FAA AD 2010-08-08, Amendment 39-
16263 (75 FR 19196, April 14, 2010), and AD 2011-06-04, Amendment 39-
16628 (76 FR 13075, March 10, 2011), correspond to EASA AD 2010-0132.
The MCAI states:

    During an in-service event, the flight crew of a Trent 700
powered A330 aeroplane reported a temporary Engine Pressure Ratio
(EPR) shortfall on engine 2 during the take-off phase of the flight.
The ENG STALL warning was set. The flight crew followed the standard
procedures which included reducing throttle to idle. The engine
recovered and provided the demanded thrust level for the remainder
of the flight.
    Data analysis confirmed a temporary fuel flow restriction and
subsequent recovery, and indicated that also engine 1 experienced a

temporary fuel flow restriction shortly after the initial event on
engine 2, again followed by a full recovery. The engine 1 EPR
shortfall was insufficient to trigger any associated warning and was
only noted through analysis of the flight data. No flight crew
action was necessary to recover normal performance on this engine.
The remainder of the flight was uneventful.
    Based on industry-wide experience, the investigation of the
event focused on the possibility for ice to temporarily restrict the
fuel flow. While no direct fuel system fault was identified, the
operation of the water scavenge system (WSS) at Rib 3 was considered
to have been a contributory factor.
    Prompted by these findings, EASA issued Emergency AD 2010-0042-E
[which corresponds to FAA AD 2010-08-08, Amendment 39-16263 (75 FR
19196, April 14, 2010] to require deactivation of the automatic
Standby Fuel Pump Scavenge System and to prohibit dispatch of an
aeroplane with one main fuel pump inoperative.
    Subsequently, EASA issued AD 2010-0132 which superseded EASA AD
2010-0042-E, retaining its requirements, to expand the applicability
to the newly certified model A330-243F [which corresponds to FAA AD
2011-06-04, Amendment 39-16628 (76 FR 13075, March 10, 2011, for the
A330-243F requirements]. EASA AD 2010-0132 was later revised to
remove the dispatch restriction with one main fuel pump inoperative.
    Since EASA AD 2010-0132R1 was issued, extensive fuel system
icing risk investigations testing was conducted by Airbus and Rolls-
Royce, the results of which confirmed that the Rib 3 WSS operation
does not induce any risk of fuel feed system (including the engine)
blockage by ice accreted on the pipework and/or pump inlets. In
addition, it was demonstrated that the risk of fuel flow restriction
by ice at the Fuel Oil Heat Exchanger (FOHE) interface on aeroplanes
equipped with Trent 700 engines is now adequately addressed by
introduction of a re-designed FOHE, more tolerant to the release of
ice (modification 200218). The modified FOHE (incorporating enhanced
anti-icing and de-icing performance) is required to be installed on
all Trent 700 engines through EASA AD 2009-0257 [which corresponds
to FAA AD 2010-07-01, Amendment 39-16244 (75 FR 15326, March 29,
2010)].
    Previously, the operation of the WSS at Rib 3 was no longer
considered as a main contributory factor on ice build-up and
subsequent release of ice into the fuel system. Based on the latest
information, the deactivation of the automatic Standby Fuel Pump
Scavenge System is no longer required.
    For the reasons described above, this Notice cancels EASA AD
2010-0132R1.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0656.

FAA's Conclusions

    Upon further consideration, we have determined that ADs 2010-08-08,
Amendment 39-16263 (75 FR 19196, April 14, 2010), and 2011-06-04,
Amendment 39-16628 (76 FR 13075, March 10, 2011), must be rescinded.
Rescission of ADs 2010-08-08 and 2011-06-04 would not preclude the FAA
from issuing another related action nor commit the FAA to any course of
action in the future.

Related Costs of Compliance

    AD 2010-08-08, Amendment 39-16263 (75 FR 19196, April 14, 2010),
affects about 13 airplanes of U.S. registry. The estimated cost of the
actions required by AD 2010-08-08 for U.S. operators is $1,105, or $85
per product. Rescinding AD 2010-08-08 would eliminate those costs.
    AD 2011-06-04, Amendment 39-16628 (76 FR 13075, March 10, 2011),
affects no airplanes of U.S. registry. For U.S. operators, there are no
costs associated with the actions required by AD 2011-06-04.

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 proposed regulation is
within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe
condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in
this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have 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 that the proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; 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.

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 removing Airworthiness Directives (AD)
2010-08-08, Amendment 39-16263 (75 FR 19196, April 14, 2010); and 2011-
06-04, Amendment 39-16628 (76 FR 13075, March 10, 2011); and adding the
following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2014-0656; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-
224-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 17, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This action removes ADs 2010-08-08, Amendment 39-16263 (75 FR
19196, April 14, 2010); and 2011-06-04, Amendment 39-16628 (76 FR
13075, March 10, 2011).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1)
and (c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Airbus Model A330-243, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes,
certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers
equipped with Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines, on which Airbus
Modification 56966MP16199 has been embodied in production or Airbus
Service Bulletin A330-28-3105 has been embodied in service.
    (2) Airbus Model A330-243F airplanes, certificated in any
category, all manufacturer serial numbers on which Airbus
Modification 56966H16199 has been embodied in production or Airbus
Service Bulletin A330-28-3105 has been embodied in service.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 24, 2014.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-23472 Filed 10-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

December 20, 2007

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Sulfometuron Methyl:  Occupational and Residential Exposure
Assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (Non-Food).

FROM:	Wade Britton, MPH, Industrial Hygienist

		Reregistration Branch 3

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

THROUGH:	Catherine Eiden, Branch Chief

		And

		Danette Drew, Chemist

		Reregistration Branch 3

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO:		Russell Wasem, Chemical Review Manager

		Reregistration Branch 1

		Special Review and Reregistration Division (SRRD) (7508P)

DP Barcode:  D345025

Pesticide Chemical Code:  122001

ExpoSAC Review Date: 10/11/07; Kelly O’Rourke, Seyed Tadayon

Table of Contents

  TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc185824932"  Executive
Summary	  PAGEREF _Toc185824932 \h  3

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc185824933"  1.0	Occupational Exposure/ Risk
Assessment	  PAGEREF _Toc185824933 \h  4

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc185824934"  1.1	Criteria for Conducting Exposure
Assessments	  PAGEREF _Toc185824934 \h  4

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc185824935"  1.2 	Toxicological Endpoints	  PAGEREF
_Toc185824935 \h  4

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc185824936"  1.3	Incident Report	  PAGEREF
_Toc185824936 \h  5

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc185824937"  1.4	Summary of Use Patterns,
Formulations and Application Methods	  PAGEREF _Toc185824937 \h  5

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc185824938"  2.0 	Occupational Exposure/ Risks
PAGEREF _Toc185824938 \h  6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc185824939"  2.1	Occupational Handler Exposure/Risks
 PAGEREF _Toc185824939 \h  7

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc185824940"  2.1.1	Data and Assumptions for Handler
Exposure Scenarios	  PAGEREF _Toc185824940 \h  8

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc185824941"  2.1.2    Sulfometuron Methyl Handler
Exposure Scenarios	  PAGEREF _Toc185824941 \h  10

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc185824942"  2.1.3	Sulfometuron methyl Handler
Exposure/Risk Calculations	  PAGEREF _Toc185824942 \h  10

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc185824943"  2.1.4	Occupational Handler Exposure/Risk
Estimates	  PAGEREF _Toc185824943 \h  12

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc185824944"  2.1.5	Risk Characterization	  PAGEREF
_Toc185824944 \h  14

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc185824945"  2.2	Occupational Postapplication
Exposure/Risks	  PAGEREF _Toc185824945 \h  15

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc185824946"  3.0	Residential Exposure/Risks	  PAGEREF
_Toc185824946 \h  15

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc185824947"  References:	  PAGEREF _Toc185824947 \h
15

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc185824948"  Appendix A: Occupational Handler Unit
Exposure Data	  PAGEREF _Toc185824948 \h  16

Executive Summary

Sulfometuron methyl is a non-selective, sulfonyl urea herbicide.  It is
labeled for commercial pre- and post-emergent applications to manage
annual and perennial broadleaf weeds and grasses in non-agricultural
sites (i.e., forestry, rights of way, industrial sites, and unimproved
turf).  Based upon the 11/28/2006 sulfometuron methyl SMART meeting,
there are no registered uses for sites which could be considered
residential or recreational settings.  While labeled use sites of
sulfometuron methyl include turf (unimproved) and non-crop industrial,
label language prohibits application to these sites in residential and
recreational areas.  According to the OPPIN Database, there are
currently a total of 24 registered products of which 4 are technical or
manufacturing concentrate formulations.  Applications ranging from 0.03
to 0.38 pound of active ingredient (ai) per acre may be made using
ground or aerial equipment. All registered sulfometuron products are
formulated as water dispersable granules (WDGs).

Hazard Concerns

The dermal and inhalation endpoints were selected from a chronic oral
study in dogs (1983, MRID No.: 129051) since the 21-day dermal rabbit
study was determined to be insufficient to assess dermal exposures due
to a number of deficiencies and no route specific study was available
for inhalation toxicity. With chronic oral exposure, signs of hemolytic
anemia were observed in dogs and body weight effects were seen beginning
on week 4 (and persisting throughout the entire study) of repeated
exposure.  Although no hematological or clinical chemistry assessments
are available at the 4-week interval, the decreases in body weight gain
noted beginning on the fourth week of the study provide an appropriate
endpoint for short-term risk assessment.  Since the hematological
effects noted at the end of the study occurred at the same dose level as
the body weight gain decrements seen beginning on the fourth week of
exposure, this study and endpoints are also appropriate to assess
potential intermediate- and long-term risks due to sulfometuron methyl
exposure.

Occupational Handler Exposure/Risk

Short- (up to 30 days) and intermediate-term (30 days to 6 months)
dermal and inhalation exposures/risks were calculated for occupational
handlers of sulfometuron methyl for different exposure scenarios.
Long-term handler exposures (greater than 6 months) are not expected to
occur.  All but one of the occupational handler short- and
intermediate-term scenarios assessed (dermal and inhalation combined)
resulted in risk estimates (MOEs) ≥ 100 at some level of personal
protection and, therefore, are not of concern.  The exposure scenario
mixing/loading WDGs for aerial application to forestry and non-crop
areas results in a combined MOE = 90 at the maximum level of personal
protection (double layer with gloves) and, therefore, is of potential
concern.  However, this concern is significantly reduced because of the
use of conservative inputs in the risk estimates (e.g., 100% dermal
absorption).

Occupational Postapplication Exposure/Risk

An occupational postapplication assessment of exposure to sulfometuron
methyl was not performed. Since sulfometuron methyl is a non-selective
herbicide used in non-agricultural areas, HED has determined that
contact with previously treated areas is likely to be insignificant.

Residential Handler and Postapplication Exposure/Risk

Residential exposure/risk (handler and postapplication) was not assessed
since label instructions do not allow applications of sulfometuron
methyl to residential or recreational settings.

Occupational Exposure/ Risk Assessment

Criteria for Conducting Exposure Assessments

An occupational and/or residential exposure assessment is required for
an active ingredient if (1) certain toxicological criteria are triggered
and (2) there is a potential for exposure to handlers during use or to
persons entering treated sites after application is complete.
Sulfometuron methyl meets the first criterion based upon the potential
for exposure to occupational handlers of sulfometuron methyl.

	1.2 	Toxicological Endpoints

The toxicology database for sulfometuron methyl is limited, but
sufficient to provide screening level endpoints for this
non-food/non-feed pesticide.  Sulfometuron methyl is not acutely toxic.
The acute oral LD50 in rats is > 5 g/kg (Toxicity Category IV), the
acute dermal LD50 is > 2 g/kg (Toxicity Category III), and the acute
inhalation LC50 > 5.0 mg/L (Toxicity Category IV).  Sulfometuron methyl
shows minimal eye irritation and minimal skin irritation, but is not
considered a dermal irritant or dermal sensitizer.  The acute toxicity
for sulfometuron methyl is presented in Table 1.  The toxicological
endpoints used to complete the occupational exposure assessment are
summarized in Table 2.

Table 1.	Acute Toxicity Profile – Sulfometuron Methyl1

Guideline No.	Study Type	MRID(s)	Results	Toxicity Category

870.1100	Acute oral - rat	43089201	LD50 = > 5000 mg/kg	IV

870.1200	Acute dermal [species]	43089202	LD50 = > 2000 mg/kg 	III

870.1300	Acute inhalation – rat	43089203	LC50 = > 5 mg/L	IV

870.2400	Acute eye irritation [species]	00071412	Minimal Irritant	III

870.2500	Acute dermal irritation [species]	41672808	Not a Dermal
Irritant	IV*

870.2600	Skin sensitization [species]	43089204	Not a Dermal Sensitizer
N/A

1 All studies were conducted on technical grade Sulfometuron methyl, of
at least 98.8%, purity.

* Minimal  skin irritation was noted in the acute dermal toxicity study
(MRID 43089202) and an older dermal dermal irritation study of a 75%
formulation (MRID 00071411)

Table 2.  Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Sulfometuron
Methyl for Use in Occupational Human Health Risk Assessments

Exposure/

Scenario	Point of Departure	Uncertainty Factors	Level of Concern for
Risk Assessment	Study and Toxicological Effects

Dermal and Inhalation Short- (1-30 days)  and Intermediate-Term (1-6
months)

(no residential uses)	NOAEL= 27.5 mg/kg/day	UFA=10x

UFH=10x	MOE = 100	Chronic 1-year dog study

LOAEL = 148.5 mg/kg/day based on decreases in body weight in males
(beginning on the fourth week of exposure and persisted throughout),
hemolytic anemia and a slight increase in alkaline phosphatase in males
and females

Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation)	No data available for assessment

UF = uncertainty factor.  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human
(intraspecies).  UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members
of the human population (interspecies).  MOE = margin of exposure.

	1.3	Incident Report

The incident report was incomplete at the time of document submission
(please see R.H. Allen, M. Hawkins & H. Allender, D343943).

	1.4	Summary of Use Patterns, Formulations and Application Methods

Sulfometuron methyl is a nonselective herbicide labeled for pre- and
post-emergent applications to manage annual and perennial grasses and
broadleaf weeds.  All sulfometuron methyl products are formulated as WDG
(ranging from 18 to 75% ai) and are directed to the target via liquid
spray applications via aerial or ground application methods.  Registered
uses of sulfometuron methyl include:

forestry (conifers, hardwoods, hybrid poplar plantations);

non-crop industrial sites (public, private, and military lands,
rights-of-way, under asphalt and concrete);

turf (unimproved); and

non-crop habitat restoration sites.

Mode of Action and Targets Controlled

Sufometuron methyl acts by inhibiting acetolactate synthase (ALS), an
enzyme that catalyzes the biosynthesis of three branched-chain amino
acids (valine, leucine, and isoleucine), all of which are essential for
plant growth.

Formulation Types and Percent Active Ingredient

A listing of registered sulfometuron methyl products are summarized
below in Table 3.  All products are formulated as WDGs.

Table 3.  End-Use Product Formulations and EPA Reg. Number

Formulation Type	Number of Products	EPA Registration Number (Percent
Active Ingredient)

WDG	20	352-401 (75%), 352-408 (75%), 352-601 (75%), 352-603 (63.2%),
352-620 (56.3%), 352-621 (50%), 352-622 (56.3%), 352-626 (68.6%),
352-645 (50%), 352-647 (56.3%), 352-712 (18%), 352-725 (18%), 66330-326
(75%), 53883-164 (75%), 74477-7 (75%), 74477-11 (56.3%), 79676-16 (75%),
81927-5 (56.3%), 81959-2 (75%), 81959-15 (56.3%)

Technical/ Manufacturing Product	4	352-554 (97.6%), 66330-322 (99%),
74477-3 (99%), 81959-1 (99%)

Application Rates, Timing and Frequency of Applications

Application rates of sulfometuron methyl range from 0.03 to 0.38 pound
of active ingredient (ai) per acre. Control is generally for a full
season or longer with only one required application per year; however,
in some situations (i.e., weed escapes) a second application may be
made, but the total applied annually should not exceed the maximum
application rate.

Application Methods

Applications of sulfometuron methyl can be made aerially (helicopter and
fixed-wing airplane) or by ground (high and low pressure handwand,
groundboom, and rights-of-way sprayer).  Low pressure handwand
applications are typical for selective foliar applications (applied to
target vegetation), while aerial, groundboom, and rights-of-way
applications are specific to wide-area, broadcast treatments.

2.0 	Occupational Exposure/ Risks

It has been determined there is a potential for exposure in occupational
scenarios from handling sulfometuron methyl products during the
application process (i.e., mixer/loaders, applicators, flaggers, and
mixer/loader/applicators).  A risk assessment has been completed for the
occupational handling of sulfometuron methyl; however, an occupational
postapplication assessment of exposure to sulfometuron methyl was not
performed.  Since sulfometuron methyl is a non-selective herbicide used
in non-agricultural areas, HED has determined that contact with
previously treated areas is likely to be insignificant.

2.1	Occupational Handler Exposure/Risks

The Agency uses the term “handlers” to describe those individuals
who are involved in the pesticide application process.  The Agency
believes that there are distinct tasks related to applications and that
exposures can vary depending on the specifics of each task.    SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1 Job requirements (e.g., the amount of chemical to be
used in an application), the kinds of equipment used, and the target
being treated can cause exposure levels to differ in a manner specific
to each application event.

The first step in the handler risk assessment process is to identify the
kinds of individuals that are likely to be exposed to sulfometuron
methyl during the application process.  In order to do this in a
consistent manner, HED has developed a series of general descriptions
for tasks that are associated with pesticide applications.  Tasks
associated with occupational pesticide use (i.e., for “handlers”)
can generally be categorized using one of the following terms:

Mixers and/or Loaders:  these individuals perform tasks in preparation
for an application.

Applicators: these individuals operate application equipment during the
release of a pesticide product into the environment.

Flaggers: these individuals guide aerial applicators during the release
of a pesticide product onto an intended target.

Mixer/Loader/Applicators: these individuals are involved in the entire
pesticide application process (i.e., they do all job functions related
to a pesticide application event).

Next, assessors must understand how exposures to sulfometuron methyl
occur (i.e., frequency and duration) and how the patterns of these
occurrences can cause the effects of the chemical to differ (referred to
as dose response).  Wherever possible, use and usage data determine the
appropriateness of certain types of risk assessments.  Other parameters
are also defined from use and usage data such as application rates and
application frequency.  HED always completes non-cancer risk assessments
using maximum application rates for each scenario because what is
possible under the label (the legal means of controlling pesticide use)
must be evaluated in order to ensure there are no concerns for each
specific use.

HED believes that occupational sulfometuron methyl exposures can occur
over a single day or up to weeks at a time for many use-patterns and
intermittent exposures over several weeks are also anticipated.  Custom
or commercial applicators may apply sulfometuron methyl over a period of
weeks completing applications for a number of different clients.  HED
classifies exposures up to 30 days as short-term and exposures greater
than 30 days up to several months (6) as intermediate-term.  Based upon
the use pattern of sulfometuron methyl, HED anticipates both short- and
intermediate-term occupational exposure.  Long-term handler exposures
(greater than 6 months) are not expected to occur.  The dermal and
inhalation endpoint selected for sulfometuron methyl is for short- and
intermediate-term durations of exposure.

2.1.1	Data and Assumptions for Handler Exposure Scenarios  TC \l3 "2.1.1
Data and Assumptions For Handler Exposure Scenarios

Assumptions for Handler Exposure Scenarios  TC \l4 "<IP_ADDRESS>	Assumptions
for Handler Exposure Scenarios

A series of assumptions and exposure factors served as the basis for
completing the occupational handler risk assessments.  The assumptions
and factors used in the risk calculations include:

HED has patterned this risk assessment on a series of likely
representative scenarios that are believed by HED to represent the vast
majority of sulfometuron methyl uses;

Average body weight of an adult handler is 70 kg because the toxicity
endpoint values used for the assessments are appropriate for average
adult body weight representing the general population;

For non-cancer assessments, HED assumes the maximum application rates
allowed by labels in its risk assessments;

Since no dermal absorption data are available, a default 100% absorption
factor is assumed;

The average occupational workday is assumed to be 8 hours; and

The daily areas treated were defined for each handler scenario (in
appropriate units) by determining the amount that can be reasonably
treated in a single day (e.g. acres, square feet, or gallons per day).
The assumptions for daily areas treated are taken from the HED ExpoSAC
SOP #9: Standard Values for Daily Acres Treated in Agriculture which was
completed on July 5, 2000.

Aerial Applications for Forestry – 1200 acres

Groundboom Applications – 200 acres

Flaggers – 350 acres

Right-of-Way Sprayer –  25 acres (based upon 1000 gallons/day, as
specified by SOP #9, and a labeled rate of 40 gallons/acre)

Low Pressure Handwand Sprayer – 1 acre (based upon 40 gallons/day, as
specified by SOP #9, and a labeled rate of 40 gallons/acre)

Data for Handler Exposure Scenarios  TC \l4 "<IP_ADDRESS>	Exposure Data for
Handler Exposure Scenarios

No chemical specific information was available for sulfometuron methyl
handler exposure assessments.  All analyses were completed using
acceptable surrogate exposure data for the scenario in question.

HED uses a concept known as unit exposure as the basis for the scenarios
used to assess handler exposures to pesticides.  Unit exposures
numerically represent the exposures one would receive related to an
application.  They are generally presented as mg active ingredient
exposure/pounds of handled (mg ai/lb).  HED has developed different unit
exposures for different types of application equipment; job functions;
and levels of protection.  The unit exposure concept has been
established in the scientific literature and also through various
exposure monitoring guidelines published by the U.S. EPA and
international organizations such as Health Canada and OECD (Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development).  All unit exposure values
used to assess occupational handler exposure/risk are presented in
Appendix A at the end of this document.

Pesticide Handler Exposure Database (PHED) Version 1.1 (August 1998):

PHED was designed by a task force of representatives from the US EPA,
Health Canada, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, and
member companies of the American Crop Protection Association.  PHED is a
software system consisting of two parts – a database of measured
exposure values for workers involved in the handling of pesticides under
actual field conditions and a set of computer algorithms used to subset
and statistically summarize the selected data.  Currently, the database
contains values for over 1,700 monitored individuals (i.e., records).
The distribution of exposure values for each body part (e.g., chest,
upper arm) is categorized as normal, lognormal, or “other” (i.e.,
neither normal nor lognormal).  A central tendency value is then
selected from the distribution of the exposure values for each body
part.  These values are the arithmetic mean for normal distributions,
the geometric mean for lognormal distributions, and the median for all
“other” distributions.  Once selected, the central tendency values
for each body part are composited into a “best fit” exposure value
representing the entire body.

The unit exposure values calculated by PHED generally ranges from the
geometric mean to the median of the selected data set.  To add
consistency and quality control to the values produced from this system,
the PHED Task Force has evaluated all data within the system and has
developed a set of grading criteria to characterize the quality of the
original study data.  The assessment of data quality is based upon the
number of observations and the available quality control data.  While
data from PHED provide the best available information on handler
exposures, it should be noted that some aspects of the included studies
(e.g., duration, acres treated, pounds of active ingredient handled) may
not accurately represent labeled uses in all cases.  HED has developed a
series of tables of standard unit exposures for many occupational
scenarios that can be used to ensure consistency in exposure
assessments.

Review of Human Research

This risk assessment relies in part on data from studies in which adult
human subjects were intentionally exposed to a pesticide or other
chemical.  The studies which compose PHED were determined to require a
review of their ethical conduct, have received that review and have been
determined to be ethical.

2.1.2    Sulfometuron Methyl Handler Exposure Scenarios  TC \l3 "2.1.2
Imazapyr Handler Exposure Scenarios

Exposure to pesticide handlers is likely during the occupational use of
sulfometuron methyl based on the types of equipment and techniques that
can potentially be used.  The quantitative exposure/risk assessment
developed for occupational handlers is based on the following scenarios.
 Sulfometuron methyl dermal and inhalation exposure was estimated using
PHED data.  Mixer/loader exposure scenarios were estimated using PHED
data specific to dry flowable (DF) products since this formulation is
most similar to WDGs; however, all other tasks (i.e., applicators,
flaggers, and mixer/loader/applicators) were assessed with PHED data
specific to liquid products since the WDGs are mixed into and applied as
a liquid.

	Mixer/Loaders:

	(1) WDG: Aerial (Fixed Wing Airplane and Helicopter)

(2) WDG: Groundboom

(3) WDG: Right-of-Way Applications

Applicators:

	(4) Liquid: Aerial Applications (Fixed Wing Airplane and Helicopter)

(5) Liquid: Groundboom Applications

(6) Liquid: Rights of Way Applications

	Flaggers:

	(7) Flagging for Aerial Sprays

	Mixer/Loader/Applicators:

	(8) Liquid: Low Pressure Handwand Sprayer

Sulfometuron methyl Handler Exposure/Risk Calculations

The daily exposure is the product of the amount of active ingredient
(ai) handled per day and a unit exposure value. The amount of ai handled
per day is the product of the application rate and the area treated.
For example, if 0.188 lb ai/acre of sulfometuron methyl were applied to
1200 acres in one day, the amount of sulfometuron methyl handled that
day would be 226 lbs.  The unit exposure value is the amount of exposure
that results from handling a given amount of active ingredient by a
certain method while using certain PPE.  For example, the dermal unit
exposure value for open mixing and loading of granulars (WDG) with
baseline PPE is 0.066 mg per pound of ai handled.  In this example, the
daily exposure would be 226 lbs ai handled multiplied by 0.066 mg unit
exposure per pound of ai handled which equals 15 mg per day.  The daily
absorbed dose (mg/kg body weight) is calculated from the exposure by
multiplying the exposure by an absorption factor (1.0) and dividing the
result by the body weight (70 kg).  In this example the absorbed daily
dose (ADD) would be (15 mg/day *1.0)/70 kg which would equal 0.21
mg/kg/day.  The MOE is calculated by dividing the endpoint for the
appropriate pathway (inhalation endpoint is a NOAEL = 27.5 mg/kg/day) by
the ADD.  For this example, the resulting MOE = 130 (rounded to 2
significant figures).

Daily dermal exposure is calculated:

Daily dermal exposure = Unit exposure x Application rate x Area Treated

          (mg/day)                     (mg/lb ai)         ( lb ai/acre)
       (acres/day)

Where:

Unit exposure = 	normalized exposure value (mg exposure per pound ai
handled) derived from PHED surrogate exposure data (Appendix A);

Application rate = 	normalized application rate based on a logical unit
treatment such as acres, a maximum value is generally used (lb ai/acre);
and

Area treated = 		normalized application area such as acres/day.

Daily inhalation unit exposure values were calculated for inclusion into
the PHED surrogate exposure tables and presented as (μg/lb ai) based on
a human inhalation rate of 29 L/minute and an 8-hour working day.

Daily inhalation exposure is calculated:

Daily inhalation exposure =   [Unit exposure x Application rate x Area
Treated] / Conversion Factor

    (μg/kg/day)	        (lb ai/acre)	       (acres/day)	 (1 mg/1000
μg)

Where:

Unit exposure = 		normalized exposure value (μg/lb ai handled) derived
from PHED;

Application rate = 	same as for dermal exposure (lb ai/acre); and

Daily treatment = 	same as for dermal exposure (acres/day).

Absorbed daily dermal and inhalation doses are then calculated by
adjusting for dermal and inhalation absorption and normalizing by body
weight. A body weight of 70 kg (average body weight) was used because
the effects observed in the toxicology study were not gender specific.

ADD is calculated:

Absorbed daily dermal/inhalation dose = (Daily dermal/inhalation
exposure x abs factor) /body weight 		(mg/kg/day) 				(mg/day)
  (unitless)	        (kg)

[Note: an absorption factor of 1.0 was used for dermal and inhalation
exposures.]

The level of concern for occupational handlers is defined by an MOE =
100. Exposure scenarios with estimated risk (MOEs) greater the level of
concern (i.e., an MOE ≥ 100) do not indicate a risk of concern for the
occupational population.

MOEs are calculated for each individual pathway (dermal, inhalation)
using the MOE formula:

MOE (unitless) =   NOAEL / ADD

Combined MOEs (dermal and inhalation) were calculated for sulfometuron
methyl because common toxicity endpoints were used to calculate dermal
and inhalation risks.  The dermal and inhalation MOEs were combined
using the formula below:

Combined MOE      =
    1                         __

          (1/Dermal MOE ) + (1/Inhalation MOE)

Occupational Handler Exposure/Risk Estimates

sessed (dermal and inhalation combined) resulted in risk estimates
(MOEs) ≥ 100 at some level of personal protection and, therefore, are
not of concern.  The exposure scenario mixing/loading of WDGs for aerial
application to forestry and non-crop areas results in a combined MOE =
90 at the maximum level of personal protection (double layer with
gloves) and, therefore, is of potential concern.  A summary of risk
calculations performed for occupational sulfometuron methyl handlers at
baseline PPE is presented below in Table 4; a summary of calculations
for occupational sulfometuron methyl handlers with additional PPE is
presented in Table 5. (as mentioned previously, unit exposure values are
provided in Appendix A).

Table 4.  Sulfometuron Methyl MOEs Attributable to Short- and
Intermediate-term Combined Dermal and Inhalation Occupational Exposure
(Baseline PPE)a

No.	Scenario	Target	App. Rateb

(lb ai/acre)	Area Treated (acres)	Dermalc MOEs	InhalationdMOEs

Combinede MOEs

Mixer/Loaders

1	WDGs: Aerial Equipment (Fixed Wing and Helicopter)	Forestry
(Hardwoods, Conifers), Non-Crop Areas (Public, Private, Military Lands)
0.38	1200	65	5600	64

Turf (Unimproved)	0.19

130	11000	130

Non-Crop Land Restoration	0.09

260	22000	260

2	WDGs: Groundboom Equipment	Forestry (Hardwoods, Conifers), Non-Crop
Areas	0.38	200	390	33000	380

Turf (Unimproved)	0.19

780	66000	770

Non-Crop Land Restoration	0.09

1500	130000	1500

3	WDGs:  Rights-of-Way Equipment	Rights-of-Way, Non-Crop Areas	0.38	25
3100	270000	3100

Turf (Unimproved)	0.19

6200	530000	6100

Non-Crop Land Restoration	0.09

12000	1100000	12000

Applicators

4	Liquids: Aerial Applications (Fixed Wing and Helicopter)	Forestry
(Hardwoods, Conifers), Non-Crop Areas 	0.38	1200	900	63000	840

Turf (Unimproved)	0.19

1700	130000	1700

Non-Crop Land Restoration	0.09

3400	250000	3400

5	Liquids: Groundboom Applications	Forestry (Hardwoods, Conifers),
Non-Crop Areas	0.38	200	1800	35000	1700

Turf (Unimproved)	0.19

3700	70000	3500

Non-Crop Land Restoration	0.09

7300	140000	7000

6	Liquids: Rights-of-Way Applications	Rights-of-Way, Non-Crop Areas	0.38
25	160	53000	160

Turf (Unimproved)	0.19

320	110000	310

Non-Crop Land Restoration	0.09

630	210000	630

Flaggers

7	Liquids: Aerial Sprays (Fixed Wing and Helicopter)	Forestry
(Hardwoods, Conifers), Non-Crop Areas 	0.38	350	1300	42000	1300

Turf (Unimproved)	0.19

2700	84000	2600

Non-Crop Land Restoration	0.09

5300	170000	5200

Mixer/Loader/Applicators

8	Liquids: Low Pressure Handwand	Non-Crop Areas	0.38	1	51	170000	51

Turf (Unimproved)	0.19

100	340000	100

Non-Crop Land Restoration	0.09

210	680000	210

a	Baseline = Long pants, long-sleeved shirt, no gloves

b	Application rate based upon maximum labeled value.

	c	Dermal MOE = Dermal NOAEL (27.5 mg/kg/day)/ ( Dermal Daily Dose
[Reference W.Britton, 345025])

	d	Inhalation MOE = Inhalation NOAEL (27.5 mg/kg/day) / ( Inhalation
Daily Dose [Reference W.Britton, 345025])

	e	Combined MOE = 1/((1/Dermal MOE)+(1/Inhalation MOE))

Table 5.  Sulfometuron Methyl MOEs Attributable to Short- and
Intermediate-term Combined Dermal

 and Inhalation Occupational Exposure (Required Additional PPE)

No.	Scenario	Target	App. Ratea

(lb ai/acre)	Area Treated (acres)	Dermalb MOEs	InhalationcMOEs

Combinedd MOEs

Mixer/Loaders - Double Layer with Gloves Level of PPE

1	WDGs: Aerial Equipment (Fixed Wing and Helicopter)	Forestry
(Hardwoods, Conifers), Non-Crop Areas (Public, Private, Military Lands)
0.38	1200	91	5600	90

Mixer/Loader/Applicators - Single Layer with Gloves Level of PPE

8	Liquids: Low Pressure Handwand	Non-Crop Areas	0.38	1	12000	170000
12000

	a	Application rate based upon maximum labeled value.

	b	Dermal MOE = Dermal NOAEL (27.5 mg/kg/day)/ ( Dermal Daily Dose
[Reference W.Britton, 345025])

	c	Inhalation MOE = Inhalation NOAEL (27.5 mg/kg/day) / ( Inhalation
Daily Dose [Reference W.Britton, 345025])

	d	Combined MOE = 1/((1/Dermal MOE)+(1/Inhalation MOE))

2.1.5	Risk Characterization

The occupational handler dermal exposure scenario is the only scenario
for which significant risks were estimated for some uses; other risk
assessments completed (e.g., chronic and acute drinking water) were not
of concern.  Due to a number of deficiencies identified in the conduct
of the 21-day dermal study, it was deemed unsuitable for endpoint
selection.  In lieu of a route-specific study, the endpoint from the
chronic oral toxicity study in dogs was used to estimate the potential
for risk from dermal exposure to sulfometuron methyl.  The Agency is
confident that the use of the chronic oral study results in a health
protective risk assessment for the following reasons:

Although the 21-day dermal study had significant flaws, no toxicity was
observed at 2000 mg/kg/day following 21 days of dosing;

The results of the acute dermal toxicity study in rabbits shows an LD50
> 2000 mg/kg [Toxicity Category III]); and

Dermal risks, which drive handler risks, were calculated assuming 100%
dermal absorption due to lack of acceptable dermal absorption data.
Assuming even a slightly lower dermal absorption of 90%, which is still
likely to exceed the actual dermal absorption, would result in risk
estimates which are not of concern for all scenarios, assuming some
level of personal protective equipment is employed.

The exposure scenario mixing/loading of WDGs for aerial application to
forestry and non-crop areas results in the lowest combined MOE = 90 at
the maximum level of personal protection (double layer with gloves).
While this exposure scenario is of potential concern, this concern is
significantly reduced because of the use of the conservative inputs
described above.

2.2	Occupational Postapplication Exposure/Risks  TC \l2 "2.2
Occupational Postapplication Exposures and Risks

HED uses the term “postapplication” to describe exposures to
individuals that occur as a result of being in an environment that has
been previously treated with a pesticide (also referred to as reentry
exposure).  HED believes that there are distinct job functions or tasks
related to the kinds of activities that occur in previously treated
areas.  Job requirements (e.g., the kinds of jobs to cultivate a crop),
the nature of the crop or target that was treated and how the chemical
residues degrade in the environment can cause exposure levels to differ
over time.

An assessment of occupational postapplication exposure to sulfometuron
methyl was not performed. Since sulfometuron methyl is a non-selective
herbicide used in non-agricultural areas, HED has determined that
contact with previously treated areas is likely to be insignificant.

3.0	Residential Exposure/Risks

Residential exposure/risk (handler and postapplication) was not assessed
since label instructions do not allow applications of sulfometuron
methyl to residential or recreational settings.

h

h

/

0

1

2

.

/

2

7

H

I

J

K

L

c

d

e

f

‚

ƒ

hr

  hr

hr

  hr

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

J

K

¸

M

Ñ

ƒ

„

…

–

—

˜

²

³

´

µ

¶

·

¸

¹

º

Ö

×

×

Ø

Ù

Ü

Ý

+

,

-

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

k

l

l

m

n

q

r

¯

°

±

Ë

Ì

Í

Î

Ï

Ð

Ñ

Ò

Ó

ï

ð

ð

ñ

ò

ö

÷

摧〬+

@

j

j

j

j

j

j

@

j

摧䖢¹

References:

US EPA. 1998a. "PHED Surrogate Exposure Guide. Estimate of Worker
Exposure from the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database," Version 1.1.
Science Advisory Council for Exposure, Office of Pesticide Programs.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC.  August, 1998.

US EPA, 2000.  "Science Advisory Council for Exposure, Policy #: 9.
Standard Values for Daily Acres Treated in Agriculture."  Science
Advisory Council for Exposure, Office of Pesticide Programs, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.  July, 2000.

Appendix A: Occupational Handler Unit Exposure Data

Table A.  Exposure Data Used for Occupational Handler/Applicator Risk
Assessment (PHED Data)

Exposure Scenarios	Baseline Dermal (Single Layer Gloves)

(mg/ lb ai)	Baseline Inhalation (No Respirator)

(µg/ lb ai)	Dermal – Additional PPE  (mg/ lb ai)

Mixer Loader Unit Exposure Values

WDGs: Aerial Equipment	0.066	0.77	0.047

(Double Layer with Gloves)

WDGs: Groundboom Equipment

	NA

WDGs: Rights of Way Equipment

	Applicator Unit Exposure Values

Liquids: Aerial Applications (Fixed Wing)	0.005	0.068	NA

Liquids: Groundboom Applications (Open Cab)	0.014	0.74	NA

Liquids: Rights of Way Equipment	1.3	3.9	NA

Flagger Unit Exposure Values

Liquids: Aerial Sprays	0.011	0.35	NA

Mixer/Loader/Applicator Unit Exposure Values

Liquids: Low Pressure Handwand	100	30	0.43

(Single Layer with Gloves)

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  16


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 104 (Thursday, May 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25047-25048]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11270]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0016; FRL-9990-81-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Part 71 Federal Operating Permit Program
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Part 71 Federal Operating Permit
Program (EPA ICR Number 1713.12, OMB Control Number 2060-0336) to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed
extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through May 31, 2019.
Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register on
September 11, 2018 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows
for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of
the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the
public. An 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.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 1, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0016, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanna W. Gmyr, Air Quality Policy
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, C504-05, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Title V of the Clean Air Act (Act) requires the EPA to
operate a federal operating permits program in areas not subject to an
approved state program. The EPA regulations setting forth the
requirements for the federal (EPA) operating permit program are at 40
CFR part 71. The part 71 program is designed to be implemented
primarily by the EPA in all areas where state and local agencies do not
have jurisdiction, such as Indian country and offshore, beyond states'
seaward boundaries. The EPA may also delegate authority to implement
the part 71 program on its behalf to a state, local or tribal agency,
if the agency requests delegation and makes certain showings regarding
its authority and ability to implement the

program. One such delegate agency for the part 71 program exists at
present.
    In order to receive an operating permit for a major or other source
subject to the permitting program, the applicant must conduct the
necessary research, perform the appropriate analyses, and prepare the
permit application with documentation to demonstrate that its facility
meets all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. Specific
activities and requirements are listed and described in the Supporting
Statement for the part 71 ICR.
    Under part 71, the permitting authority (the EPA or a delegate
agency) reviews permit applications, provides for public review of
proposed permits, issues permits based on consideration of all
technical factors and public input, and reviews information submittals
required of sources during the term of the permit. Under part 71, the
EPA reviews certain actions and performs oversight of any delegate
agency, consistent with the terms of a delegation agreement.
Consequently, information prepared and submitted by sources is
essential for sources to receive permits, and for federal and tribal
permitting agencies to adequately review the permit applications and
issue the permits, oversee implementation of the permits, and properly
administer and manage the program.
    Information that is collected is handled according to EPA's
policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B--
Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR part 2). See also
section 114(c) of the Act.
    Form Numbers: 5900-01, 5900-02, 5900-03, 5900-04, 5900-05, 5900-06,
5900-79, 5900-80, 5900-81, 5900-82, 5900-83, 5900-84, 5900-85 and 5900-
86.
    Respondents/affected entities: Industrial plants (sources) and
tribal permitting authorities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: mandatory (see 40 CFR part 71).
    Estimated number of respondents: 93 (total); 92 industry sources
and one tribal delegate permitting authority (the EPA serves as a
permitting authority but is not a respondent).
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 23,707 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,657,776 (per year). There are no
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of 2,230 hours per year
for the estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease is due to updated estimates of the
number of sources and permits subject to the part 71 program, rather
than any change in federal mandates.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-11270 Filed 5-29-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 139 (Friday, July 21, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46956-46958]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15466]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1035; Special Conditions No. 25-819-SC]

Special Conditions: Airbus Model A321neo XLR Airplane; Side-Stick
Controller--Controllability and Maneuverability

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Airbus Model
A321neo XLR airplanes. The airplane will have a novel or unusual design
feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the
airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design
feature is side-stick controllers for pitch and roll control. The
applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special
conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Airbus on July 21, 2023. Send
comments on or before September 5, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2021-1035 using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to https://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: Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as
described in the following paragraph, and other information as
described in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (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 these special conditions.
    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 these special
conditions contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to these special conditions, 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 the indicated comments will not be placed in the public
docket of these special conditions. Send submissions containing CBI to
Troy Brown, Performance and Environment Unit, AIR-621A, Technical
Policy Branch, Policy and Standards Division, Aircraft Certification
Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 1801 S Airport Rd., Wichita,
KS 67209-2190; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected]. Comments the FAA receives, which are not
specifically designated as CBI, will be placed in the public docket for
these special conditions.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
https://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket or go 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Troy Brown, Performance and
Environment Unit, AIR-621A, Technical Policy Branch, Policy and
Standards Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 1801 S Airport Rd., Wichita, KS 67209-2190; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The substance of these special conditions
has been published in the Federal Register for public comment in
several prior instances with no substantive comments received.
Therefore, the FAA finds, pursuant to Sec.  11.38(b), that new comments
are unlikely, and notice and comment prior to this publication are
unnecessary.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested people to take part in this rulemaking
by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for
comments. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the
comments received.

Background

    On September 16, 2019, Airbus applied for an amendment to Type
Certificate No. A28NM to include the new Model A321neo XLR airplanes,
which include the Model A321-271NY and -253NY airplanes. These
airplanes are twin-engine, transport-category airplanes with seating
for 244 passengers and a maximum takeoff weight of 222,000 pounds.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Airbus must show that the
Model A321neo XLR airplanes meet the applicable provisions of the
regulations listed in Type Certificate No. A28NM, or the applicable
regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except
for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (e.g., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Airbus Model A321neo XLR airplanes
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Airbus Model A321neo XLR airplanes must comply with the
fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the
noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in Sec.  11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Airbus Model A321neo XLR airplanes will incorporate the
following novel or unusual design feature: Side-stick controllers for
pitch and roll control.

Discussion

    These proposed special conditions for the Airbus A321neo XLR
airplane address the novel features of the side-stick controllers. The
A321neo XLR will incorporate side-stick controllers controlling a fly-
by-wire (FBW) electronic flight control system (EFCS). This system
provides an electronic interface between the pilot's flight controls
and the flight control surfaces for both normal and failure states, and
it generates the actual surface commands that provide for stability
augmentation and control about all three airplane axes. In addition,
pilot control authority may be uncertain, because the side-stick
controllers are not mechanically interconnected as with conventional
wheel and column controls.
    Current FAA regulations do not specifically address the use of
side-stick controllers for pitch and roll control.

The unique features of the side stick must therefore be demonstrated
through flight and simulator tests to have suitable handling and
control characteristics when considering the following:
    1. The handling-qualities tasks and requirements of the Airbus
Model A321neo XLR airplane special conditions, and other 14 CFR part 25
requirements for stability, control, and maneuverability, including the
effects of turbulence.
    2. General ergonomics: Armrest comfort and support, local freedom
of movement, displacement angle suitability, and axis harmony.
    3. Inadvertent input in turbulence.
    4. Inadvertent pitch-roll crosstalk.
    The FAA Handling Qualities Rating Method (HQRM) of Appendix E of
the Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category
Airplanes, AC 25-7D, may be, but is not required to be, used to show
compliance.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions apply to Airbus Model
A321neo XLR airplanes. Should Airbus apply later for a change to the
type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel
or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that
model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general
applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Airbus Model A321neo XLR airplanes.
    (a) Pilot Strength. In lieu of the ``strength of pilots'' limits of
Sec.  25.143(d) for pitch and roll, and in lieu of the specific pitch
force requirements of Sec. Sec.  25.145(b) and 25.175(d), the following
applies:
    The applicant must show that the temporary and maximum prolonged
force levels for the side-stick controllers are suitable for all
expected operating conditions and configurations, whether normal or
non-normal.
    (b) Controller Coupling. The electronic side-stick controller
coupling design must provide for corrective and/or overriding control
inputs by either pilot with no unsafe characteristics. Annunciation of
controller status must be provided and must not be confusing to the
flightcrew.
    (c) Pilot Control. The applicant must show by flight tests that the
use of side-stick controllers does not produce unsuitable pilot-in-the-
loop control characteristics when considering precision path control
tasks and turbulence. In addition, pitch and roll control-force
sensitivity and displacement sensitivity must be compatible, so that
normal inputs on one control axis will not cause significant
unintentional inputs on the other.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 17, 2023.
Patrick R. Mullen,
Manager, Technical Policy Branch, Policy and Standards Division,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-15466 Filed 7-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4251-4252]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01254]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-809, OMB Control No. 3235-0766]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request: Extension: Rule 17a-
14 and Form CRS

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule 17a-
14 [17 CFR 240.17a-14] and Form CRS [17 CFR 249.640], under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 17a-14 and Form CRS require a broker-dealer that offers
services to retail investors to prepare and file with the Commission
through WebCRD, post to the broker-dealer's website (if it has one),
and deliver to retail investors a relationship summary. The
relationship summary can assist retail investors in making an informed
choice about whether to hire or retain a broker-dealer,

as well as what types of accounts and services are appropriate for
their needs.
    The information that must be collected pursuant to Rule 17a-14 and
Form CRS is necessary to provide broker-dealer retail customers,
prospective retail customers, and the Commission with information about
the relationships and services the firm offers to retail investors,
fees and costs that the retail investor will pay, specific conflicts of
interest and standards of conduct, legal or disciplinary history, and
how to obtain additional information about the firm. The Commission
uses the information to manage its regulatory and examination programs.
Clients can use the information required in the relationship summary to
determine whether to hire or retain a broker-dealer, as well as what
types of accounts and services are appropriate for their needs. The
information will therefore help establish a framework that protects
investors and promotes efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
    The aggregate annual hour burden for all respondents to comply with
the information collection requirements of Rule 17a-14 and Form CRS is
estimated to be approximately 6,098,916 hours per year. Under Rule 17a-
14 and Form CRS, respondents will also incur cost burdens. The
aggregate annual cost burden for all respondents is estimated to be
approximately $181,194 per year.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: >www.reginfo.gov<. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent by February 23, 2023 to (i)
>[email protected]< and (ii) David Bottom,
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by sending
an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: January 18, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01254 Filed 1-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P