[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 188 (Thursday, September 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59447-59450]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23760]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0281]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption from the diabetes mellitus
requirement; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 18 individuals
for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0281 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-85.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to renew
exemptions at the end of the 2-year

period. The 18 individuals listed in this notice have recently
requested such an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce.
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by the statutes.

Qualifications of Applicants

Charles E. Castle

    Mr. Castle, age 55, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Castle understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Castle meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A Commercial Driver's License (CDL) from Ohio.

Robert R. Coscio

    Mr. Coscio, 73, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Coscio understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Coscio meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him
in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He
holds a Class A CDL from New York.

Larry W. Dearing

    Mr. Dearing, 60, has had ITDM since 1996. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dearing understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dearing meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class B CDL from Indiana.

Bradley E. DeWitt

    Mr. DeWitt, 53, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. DeWitt understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. DeWitt meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him
in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He
holds a Class A CDL from Oregon.

Leonard R. Dobosenski

    Mr. Dobosenski, 56, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dobosenski understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dobosenski meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

Rodney L. Fife

    Mr. Fife, 36, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Fife understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Fife meets the vision requirements
of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2012 and
certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class
B CDL from Ohio.

Patrick J. Flynn

    Mr. Flynn, 28, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Flynn understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Flynn meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from Iowa.

Thomas K. Galford

    Mr. Galford, 32, has had ITDM since 1988. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Galford understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Galford meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class A CDL from West Virginia.

Laurence S. Goldstein

    Mr. Goldstein, 43, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in

impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past
12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in
the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Goldstein
understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Goldstein meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from
New York.

Michael L. Kiefer

    Mr. Kiefer, 54, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kiefer understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kiefer meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from South Dakota.

Marcus J. Kyle

    Mr. Kyle, 28, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kyle understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kyle meets the vision requirements
of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2012 and
certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class
A CDL from Iowa.

Kevin K. Leavey

    Mr. Leavey, 24, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Leavey understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Leavey meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class D operator's license from New Jersey.

Sharon K. Locke

    Ms. Locke, 64, has had ITDM since 2011. Her endocrinologist
examined her in 2012 and certified that she has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent 2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Locke understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Locke meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in
2012 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She
holds a Class B CDL from Indiana.

David J. Maxwell

    Mr. Maxwell, 22, has had ITDM since the age of 8. His
endocrinologist examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no
severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness,
requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired
cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months
and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Maxwell understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Maxwell meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class D operator's license from North Dakota.

Robert C. Moore

    Mr. Moor, 51, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Moore understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Moore meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.

Jedediaha C. Record

    Mr. Record, 32, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Record understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely.
    Mr. Record meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His optometrist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wyoming.

Jessie L. Webster

    Mr. Webster, 42, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Webster understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Webster meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Kentucky.

Robert F. Zitoli

    Mr. Zitoli, 35, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting

in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person,
or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without
warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe
hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist
certifies that Mr. Zitoli understands diabetes management and
monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is
able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Zitoli meets the vision requirements of
49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2012 and
certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an
operator's license from Massachusetts.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section
of the notice.
    FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires
the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on
September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441) \1\. The revision must provide for
individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be
consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 4129(a) refers to the 2003 notice as a ``final
rule.'' However, the 2003 notice did not issue a ``final rule'' but
did establish the procedures and standards for issuing exemptions
for drivers with ITDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for 3
years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin;
and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to
demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate
a CMV.
    In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the
diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice.
FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled
the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that
operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level
of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 USC. 31136(e).
    Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs
with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with
the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements
that are deemed medically necessary.
    The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and
medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as
modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of
the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as
modified by the notice in the Federal Register on November 8, 2005 (70
FR 67777), remain in effect.

    Issued on: September 19, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-23760 Filed 9-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 176 (Friday, September 11, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54729-54733]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22946]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0214; FRL-9933-35]

Tetraethylene Glycol; Exemption From the Requirement of a
Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of tetraethylene glycol (CAS Reg. No. 112-
60-7) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent) in pesticide
formulations applied to growing crops. Exponent, Inc. on behalf of
Drexel Chemical Company submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation
eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for
residues of tetraethylene glycol.

DATES: This regulation is effective September 11, 2015. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 10, 2015,
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-2015-0214, 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), West William Jefferson Clinton 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP

Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_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 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/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-2015-0214 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
November 10, 2015. 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-2015-0214, 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 CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of May 20, 2015 (80 FR 28925) (FRL-9927-
39), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-10753) by
Exponent, Inc. (1150 Connecticut Ave. Suite 1100 NW., Washington, DC
20036) on behalf of Drexel Chemical Company, P.O. Box 13327 Memphis, TN
38113-0327. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.920 be amended by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of tetraethylene glycol (CAS Reg. No. 112-60-7) when used as
an inert ingredient (solvent) in pesticide formulations applied to
growing crops. That document referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by Exponent on behalf of Drexel Chemical Company, the
petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no substantive comments received in
response to the notice of filing.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for 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 . . . .''
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human
health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to
pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the
inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert
ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures
that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA
is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), 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 tetraethylene glycol including
exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with tetraethylene glycol
follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by tetraethylene glycol as well as the
no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-
adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in
this unit.
    Acute, subchronic and mutagenicity studies were available but
chronic, developmental, reproduction and metabolism studies were not
available on tetraethylene glycol. Ethylene glycol and the higher
glycols (di-, tri-, tetra-, and pentaethylene glygol) are closely
related in structure. Their physicochemical properties differ in a
regular and expected way due to the increasing molecular weight and
consistent functionality of a relatively less stable hydroxy moiety on
each end of the molecule. Therefore, the hazard profile and dose
response are also expected to change consistently with decreasing
potential for adverse effect with increasing molecular weight (OECD
SIDS SIAM 18, 2004). Based on this, toxicity data on triethylene glycol
(which has a lower molecular weight than tetraethylene glycol and is
likely to provide a conservative estimate of potential for adverse
effect) was used as surrogate data to bridge chronic, developmental,
reproduction toxicity and metabolism data for tetraethylene glycol.
    The acute oral and dermal toxicity of tetraethylene glycol is low.
The oral and dermal LD50s are >20,000 mg/kg (milligram/
kilogram) in the rat and rabbit. Acute inhalation toxicity in rats is
also low; the LC50 is >2.5 liter (L)/min. Tetraethylene
glycol is mildly irritating to the eyes and to the skin in rabbits. It
is not a dermal sensitizer.
    Tetraethylene glycol did not cause toxicity at doses up to 2,000
milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day) in a subchronic oral toxicity
study in rats.
    Based on developmental and reproduction toxicity studies with
triethylene glycol, tetraethylene glycol is not expected to be a
developmental/reproduction toxicant. Neither maternal, developmental
nor reproduction toxicity was observed up to 3,300 mg/kg/day (greater
than three times the limit dose).
    Available mutagenicity studies included the Ames test, mammalian
gene mutation, sister chromatid exchange, chromosome aberrations, the
chromatid dominant lethal test, and mouse micronucleus assays.
Tetraethylene glycol was negative for inducing mutations and
aberrations in all of the studies except the sister chromatid exchange
assay which was positive. However, based on the weight of evidence
tetraethylene glycol is not expected to be mutagenic.
    Carcinogenicity studies were not available. However, based on the
lack of systemic toxicity and the lack of mutagenicity tetraethylene
glycol is not expected to be carcinogenic.
    Neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity studies were not available for
review. However, evidence of neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity was not
observed in the available studies.
    Metabolism studies are not available on tetraethylene glycol.
However, it is postulated that the metabolic pathway for tetraethylene
glycol is similar to that of triethylene glycol in that it undergoes
oxidation via alcohol dehydrogenases and aldehyde dehydrogenases to
generate dicarboxylic acid metabolites.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by tetraethylene glycol as well as the NOAEL and
the LOAEL from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document, ``Tetraethylene Glycol; Human
Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Effects Assessment to Support
Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance When Used as
Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Formulations'' in docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2015-0214.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    The available toxicity studies indicate that tetraethylene glycol
has low toxicity. No effects were observed up to 2,000 mg/kg/day
following subchronic exposure. In the developmental and reproduction
toxicity studies, effects were observed only at very high doses
([gteqt]3,300 mg/kg/day). Further, the only effect observed at 3,300
mg/kg/day was a minor decrement in bodyweight. Although, doses between
590-3300 mg/kg/day were not tested in the developmental and
reproduction studies in mice, the Agency is reasonably certain that no
harm will occur to the general population or infants and children
following the use of tetraethylene glycol at any dose below the limit
dose given the lack of effects being found and the fact that the only
effect seen was a minor bodyweight decrease seen at 3,300 mg/kg/day.
Since, no other effects were observed, the Agency concluded that there
are no endpoints of concern for tetraethylene glycol and a qualitative
risk assessment is appropriate.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to tetraethylene glycol, EPA considered exposure under the
proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed
dietary exposures from tetraethylene glycol in food as follows:
    Tetraethylene glycol will be used as a solvent in pesticide
formulations used on agricultural crops. Additionally, it is used as an
indirect food additive.
    For the general population, the majority of exposure to
tetraethylene glycol occurs from the extensive use as a FDA-approved
indirect food additive. Under this exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance, residues of this chemical also may be found on treated
crops. Because no hazard endpoint of concern was identified for the
acute and chronic dietary assessment (food and drinking water), a
quantitative dietary exposure risk assessment was not conducted.
    2. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).
    Tetraethylene glycol is used as an inert ingredient in non-food use
pesticide formulations and is also used as a humectant in cosmetics.
However, based on the lack of toxicity, a quantitative exposure
assessment from residential exposures was not performed.
    3. 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 tetraethylene glycol to share a common mechanism
of toxicity with any other substances, and tetraethylene glycol does
not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances.
For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed
that tetraethylene glycol 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 Food Quality
Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA 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.
    As part of its qualitative assessment, the Agency did not use
safety factors for assessing risk, and no additional safety factor is
needed for assessing risk to infants and children. Based on an
assessment of tetraethylene glycol and its chemical properties, EPA has
concluded that there are no toxicological endpoints of concern for the
U.S. population, including infants and children.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Because no toxicological endpoints of concern were identified, EPA
concludes that aggregate exposure to residues of tetraethylene glycol
will not pose a risk to the U.S. population, including infants and
children, and that no harm will result to the general population, or to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to tetraethylene glycol
residues.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of
tetraethylene glycol in or on any food commodities. EPA is establishing
a limitation on the amount of tetraethylene glycol that may be used in
pesticide formulations applied to growing crops. That limitation will
be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C.
136 et seq. EPA will not register any pesticide formulation for use on
growing crops for sale or distribution that contains of tetraethylene
glycol.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established under 40 CFR 180.920 for tetraethylene glycol (CAS Reg. No.
112-60-7) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent) in pesticide
formulations applied to growing crops.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of
tolerance 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 action has been exempted from review
under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This action 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 exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition
under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption 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 action 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 action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    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 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VIII. 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: September 3, 2015.
Susan Lewis,
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.  180.920, add alphabetically the inert ingredient
``Tetraethylene glycol'' to the table to read as follows:

Sec.  180.920  Inert ingredients used pre-harvest; exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Inert ingredients              Limits               Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Tetraethylene glycol (CAS Reg.     ..............  Solvent
 No. 112-60-7).

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

[FR Doc. 2015-22946 Filed 9-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 27 (Friday, February 10, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10264-10266]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01769]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9382; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-032-AD;
Amendment 39-18790; AD 2017-02-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. Gliders

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. Model ASK 21 gliders. This AD results
from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an
aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as cable slack in gliders equipped with a rudder hand control

system leading to a short-term blockage of the rudder control system
and reduced control. We are issuing this AD to require actions to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:  This AD is effective March 17, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of March 17,
2017.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9382; or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Alexander
Schleicher GmbH & Co. Segelflugzeugbau, Alexander-Schleicher-Str. 1, D-
36163 Poppenhausen, Germany; phone: +49 (0) 06658 89-0; fax: +49 (0)
06658 89-40; Internet: http://www.alexander-schleicher.de/; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-
2016-9382.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Alexander Schleicher GmbH &
Co. Model ASK 21 gliders. The NPRM was published in the Federal
Register on November 10, 2016 (81 FR 78947). The NPRM proposed to
correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an
aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:

    A temporary rudder control blockage was reported, involving an
ASK 21 sailplane equipped with a rudder hand control system. The
subsequent investigation revealed significant cable slack in the
rudder control system.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
reduced rudder control, possibly resulting in reduced
controllability of the sailplane.
    To address this potentially unsafe condition, Schleicher issued
ASK 21 Technical Note (TN) 38 to provide instructions to amend the
ASK 21 Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM), incorporating updated pre-
flight inspection instructions to check the rudder control system of
sailplanes modified in accordance with the instructions of
Schleicher ASK 21 TN 25 (rudder actuated by hand lever for the front
pilot seat) or TN 30 (rudder control by hand for the rear pilot
seat).

For reasons described above, this AD requires amendment of the
applicable Schleicher ASK 21 AFM, revising pre-flight checks of the
rudder hand control system. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on
the Internet at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2016-9382-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. ASK 21 Technical Note
No. 38, dated May 31, 2016. The service information describes
procedures for inspecting gliders equipped with a rudder hand control
system for proper tension and adjustment if necessary. 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 of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 64 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $10,880, or $170 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 1 work-hour for cost of $85 per product. We have no way of
determining the number of products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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-2016-
9382; 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 the NPRM, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2017-02-11 Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co.: Amendment 39-; Docket
No. FAA-2016-9382; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-032-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March 17,
2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. ASK 21
gliders, all serial numbers, certificated in any category, that are
modified with a rudder hand control system using either ASK 21
Technical Note No. 25, dated February 16, 1993, or ASK 21 Technical
Note No. 30, dated January 22, 2007.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cable slack in
gliders equipped with a rudder hand control system. We are issuing
this proposed AD to correct any excess slack in the rudder hand
control system, which could result in a short-term blockage of the
rudder control system and reduced control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through
(4) of this AD:
    (1) If the glider is equipped with a rudder actuated by means of
a hand lever at the left cockpit wall in the front pilot seat by ASK
21 Technical Note (TN) No. 25, dated February 16, 1993, within the
next 60 days after March 17, 2017 (the effective date of this AD),
replace the flight manual (FM) and maintenance manual (MM) pages
with the following pages in ASK 21 TN No. 38, dated May 31, 2016:
    (i) FM: Check List/1, 16a, 19.1a., and 21.
    (ii) MM: 13, 15.
    (2) If the glider is equipped with a rudder actuated by means of
a hand lever at the left cockpit wall in the rear pilot seat by ASK
21 TN No. 30, dated January 22, 2007, within the next 60 days after
March 17, 2017 (the effective date of this AD), replace the FM and
MM pages with the following pages in ASK 21 TN No. 38, dated May 31,
2016:
    (i) FM: Check List/1, 16a, 18a, 19b, 19c, 19.1a, and 21.
    (ii) MM: 13, 15.
    (3) For all affected gliders, within the next 60 days after
March 17, 2017 (the effective date of this AD) and repetitively
thereafter at intervals not to exceed every 12 months, inspect the
rudder cable tension and make any necessary corrections following
the instructions from FM page 19.1a, Checking and Adjusting of the
Cable Tension, as specified in ASK 21 TN No. 38, dated May 31, 2016.
    (4) For all affected gliders, after March 17, 2017 (the
effective date of this AD), any glider modified with a rudder hand
control system in accordance with ASK 21 TN No. 25 or TN No. 30 must
also have the FM and MM amended following the instructions in ASK 21
TN No. 38, dated May 31, 2016.

(g) Pilot Authorization

    In addition to the provisions of 14 CFR 43.3 and 43.7, the
actions required by paragraph (f)(1) through (2) of this AD may be
performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private
pilot certificate and must be entered into the glider records
showing compliance with this AD following 14 CFR 43.9 (a)(1) through
(4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as
required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(i) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2016-0192, dated September 28, 2016; ASK 21 Technical Note No. 25,
dated February 16, 1993; and ASK 21 Technical Note No. 30, dated
January 22, 2007, for related information. The MCAI can be found in
the AD docket on the Internet at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2016-9382-0002.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. ASK 21 Technical Note No.
38, dated May 31, 2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co service information
identified in this AD, contact Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co.
Segelflugzeugbau, Alexander-Schleicher-Str. 1, D-36163 Poppenhausen,
Germany; phone: +49 (0) 06658 89-0; fax: +49 (0) 06658 89-40;
Internet: http://www.alexander-schleicher.de/; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (4) You may review this referenced service information at the
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. In addition, you can access this service
information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9382.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 19, 2017.
Melvin Johnson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-01769 Filed 2-9-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P