[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5233-5235]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2021-0002]

Final Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or
modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where
applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have
been made final for the communities listed in the table below. The FIRM
and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that
a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having
in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in
the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used
by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance
premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: The date of May 4, 2021 has been established for the FIRM and,
where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified
flood hazard information for each community.

ADDRESSES: The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the
final flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov by the date indicated above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or
modified flood hazard information for each community listed.
Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local
circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy
Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any
appeals resulting from this notification.
    This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at https://msc.fema.gov.
    The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds
and/or communities listed in the table below.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Logan County, Colorado and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1977
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Sterling.......................  City Administration Building,
                                          Public Works Department, 421
                                          North 4th Street, Sterling, CO
                                          80751.
Town of Crook..........................  Town Hall, 212 4th Street,
                                          Crook, CO 80726.
Town of Iliff..........................  Town Hall, 405 West 2nd Avenue,
                                          Iliff, CO 80736.
Town of Merino.........................  Town Hall, 208 Colorado Avenue,
                                          Merino, CO 80741.
Unincorporated Areas of Logan County...  Logan County Courthouse,
                                          Planning, Zoning and Building
                                          Department, 315 Main Street,
                                          Suite 2, Sterling, CO 80751.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Marshall County, Mississippi and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1946
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Holly Springs..................  Utility Department, 1050
                                          Highway 4 East, Holly Springs,
                                          MS 38635.
Town of Byhalia........................  Town Hall, 161 Highway 309
                                          South, Byhalia, MS 38611.
Unincorporated Areas of Marshall County  Marshall County Zoning
                                          Department, 590 Highway 178
                                          East, Holly Springs, MS 38635.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Quitman County, Mississippi and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1946
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Quitman County.  Quitman County Courthouse, 220
                                          Chestnut Street, Suite 3,
                                          Marks, MS 38646.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Tate County, Mississippi and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1946
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Tate County....  Tate County Emergency
                                          Management Office, 910 East F.
                                          Hale Drive, Senatobia, MS
                                          38668.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Tunica County, Mississippi and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1946
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Tunica.........................  Town Hall, 909 River Road,
                                          Tunica, MS 38676.
Unincorporated Areas of Tunica County..  Tunica County Office of
                                          Planning and Development, 1061
                                          South Court Street, Tunica, MS
                                          38676.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Niagara County, New York (All Jurisdictions)
                   Docket Nos: FEMA-B-1832 and B-1975
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Niagara Falls..................  City Hall, 745 Main Street,
                                          Niagara Falls, NY 14301.
City of North Tonawanda................  City Hall, 216 Payne Avenue,
                                          North Tonawanda, NY 14120.
Town of Lewiston.......................  Town Hall, 1375 Ridge Road,
                                          Lewiston, NY 14092.
Town of Newfane........................  Town Hall/Community Center,
                                          2737 Main Street, Newfane, NY
                                          14108.
Town of Porter.........................  Porter Town Hall, 3265 Creek
                                          Road, Youngstown, NY 14174.
Town of Somerset.......................  Somerset Town Hall, 8700 Haight
                                          Road, Barker, NY 14012.
Town of Wheatfield.....................  Town Hall, 2800 Church Road,
                                          Wheatfield, NY 14120.
Town of Wilson.........................  Town Hall, 375 Lake Street,
                                          Wilson, NY 14172.
Village of Lewiston....................  Village Hall, 145 North 4th
                                          Street, Lewiston, NY 14092.
Village of Wilson......................  Wilson Town Hall, 375 Lake
                                          Street, Wilson, NY 14172.
Village of Youngstown..................  Village Hall, 240 Lockport
                                          Street, Youngstown, NY 14174.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Greenville County, South Carolina and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1966
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Greer..........................  City Hall, 301 East Poinsett
                                          Street, Greer, SC 29651.
Unincorporated Areas of Greenville       Greenville County Square, Code
 County.                                  Compliance Division, 301
                                          University Ridge, Suite 4100,
                                          Greenville, SC 29601.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Lake County, Ohio and Incorporated Areas
                   Docket Nos.: FEMA-B-1806 and B-1961
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Eastlake.......................  City Hall, 35150 Lakeshore
                                          Boulevard, Eastlake, OH 44095.
City of Mentor.........................  Municipal Center, 8500 Civic
                                          Center Boulevard, Mentor, OH
                                          44060.
City of Mentor-on-the-Lake.............  City Hall, 5860 Andrews Road,
                                          Mentor-on-the-Lake, OH 44060.
City of Willoughby.....................  City Hall, One Public Square,
                                          Willoughby, OH 44094.
City of Willowick......................  Building Inspector's Office,
                                          31230 Vine Street, Willowick,
                                          OH 44095.
Unincorporated Areas of Lake County....  County Engineer's Office, 550
                                          Blackbrook Road, Painesville,
                                          OH 44077.
Village of Fairport Harbor.............  Village Hall, 220 Third Street,
                                          Fairport Harbor, OH 44077.
Village of Grand River.................  Village Hall, 205 Singer
                                          Avenue, Grand River, OH 44045.
Village of Lakeline....................  Village Hall, 33801 Lakeshore
                                          Boulevard, Lakeline, OH 44095.
Village of North Perry.................  Village Hall, 4449 Lockwood
                                          Road, North Perry, OH 44081.

Village of Timberlake..................  Municipal Building, 11 East
                                          Shore Boulevard, Timberlake,
                                          OH 44095.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Spartanburg County, South Carolina and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1966
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Spartanburg....................  City Hall, 145 West Broad
                                          Street, Spartanburg, SC 29306.
City of Wellford.......................  City Hall, 127 Syphrit Road,
                                          Wellford, SC 29385.
Town of Duncan.........................  Town Hall, 153 West Main
                                          Street, Duncan, SC 29334.
Unincorporated Areas of Spartanburg      Spartanburg County
 County.                                  Administration Building, 366
                                          North Church Street,
                                          Spartanburg, SC 29303.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Union County, South Carolina and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1966
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Union..........................  City Hall, 101 Sharpe Avenue,
                                          Union, SC 29379.
Unincorporated Areas of Union County...  Union County Court House, 210
                                          West Main Street, Union, SC
                                          29379.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-01107 Filed 1-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 196 (Thursday, October 14, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57030-57033]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22292]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0312; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01376-T;
Amendment 39-21729; AD 2021-19-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited
(Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Model DHC-8-102, -103,
and -106 airplanes; Model DHC-8-201 and -202 airplanes; Model DHC-8-
301, -311, and -315 airplanes; and Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402
airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports that mounting nuts attaching
the rudder actuator bracket to the vertical stabilizer have been found
cracked or missing due to hydrogen embrittlement. This AD requires a
one-time inspection of the rudder actuator bracket mounting nuts, and
corrective actions if necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 18, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 18,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited, Q-Series Technical
Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected];
internet https://dehavilland.com. You may view this service information
at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0312.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0312; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 516-
794-5531; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2020-34, dated October 6,
2020 (TCCA AD CF-2020-34) (also referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited
Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes; Model DHC-8-201 and -202
airplanes; Model DHC-8-301, -311, -314, and -315 airplanes; and Model
DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes. Model DHC-8-314 airplanes are not
certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type
certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those
airplanes in the applicability. You may examine the MCAI in the AD
docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2021-0312.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain De Havilland
Aircraft of Canada Limited Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes;
Model DHC-8-201 and -202 airplanes; Model DHC-8-301, -311, and -315
airplanes; and Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2021 (86 FR 20459). The
NPRM was prompted by reports that mounting nuts attaching the rudder
actuator bracket to the vertical stabilizer have been found cracked or
missing due to hydrogen embrittlement. The NPRM proposed to require a
one-time inspection of the rudder actuator bracket mounting nuts, and
corrective actions if necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
the possible loss of the rudder actuator bracket, which could result in
a dormant disconnection between the rudder actuator and the vertical
stabilizer. This condition, if not addressed, could result in a loss of
directional control of the aircraft. See the MCAI for additional
background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), indicated
its support for the NPRM.

Request To Require Procedure Only

    Horizon Air requested that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD be
changed to require only paragraph 3.B. (Procedure) of the
Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information.
Horizon stated that requiring paragraph 3.A. (Job Set-up) and paragraph
3.C. (Close-Out) restricts an operator's ability to perform other
maintenance in conjunction with the required actions.
    The FAA agrees with the request. Paragraph (g) of this AD has been
changed to require only paragraph 3.B. (Procedure) of the
Accomplishment Instructions of De Havilland Service Bulletin 8-27-123,
Revision A, dated September 8, 2020; or Service Bulletin 84-27-74,
Revision B, dated September 8, 2020; as applicable.

Request To Remove and Replace All Suspect Hardware

    A commenter suggested removal and replacement of ``all suspect
hardware.'' The commenter asserted that hydrogen embrittlement would
not be evident by way of visual inspection. The FAA infers a request to
change the requirements of the proposed AD to replace all affected
rudder actuator bracket mounting nuts instead of relying on an
inspection to determine which mounting nuts need replacement.
    The FAA disagrees with the request. The FAA notes that the rudder
actuator bracket mounting nuts were installed as required by AD 2012-
04-08, Amendment 39-16964 (77 FR 13193, March 6, 2012), which has a
compliance time of within 6,000 flight hours or 3 years after April 10,
2012, whichever occurs first. Viking confirmed that mounting nuts with
hydrogen embrittlement can show cracking as soon as one week after
being torqued. However, these airplanes have been flying for several
years with the mounting nuts installed and without reports of loss of
directional control of the airplane caused by the mounting nuts. TCCA
and Viking therefore determined, and the FAA agrees, that a one-time
visual inspection and replacement if necessary is sufficient to address
the unsafe condition. This AD has not been changed with regard to this
request.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule with the change described previously
and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    De Havilland has issued Service Bulletin 8-27-123, Revision A,
dated September 8, 2020; and Service Bulletin 84-27-74, Revision B,
dated September 8, 2020. This service information specifies procedures
for doing a detailed visual inspection of the nuts attaching the rudder
actuator brackets to the rear spar. If the nuts are corroded, cracked,
or otherwise damaged, or if they are missing, they are replaced. These
documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
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.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD would affect 69 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 work-hours x $85 per hour = $255...........................              $0             $255          $17,595
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacement that would be required based on the results of the
inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft
that might need this replacement:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                 Action                          Labor cost                  Parts cost               product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nut replacement........................  2 work-hours x $85 per     Minimal.....................            $170
                                          hour = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2021-19-11 De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.): Amendment 39-21729; Docket No.
FAA-2021-0312; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01376-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective November 18,
2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited (type
certificate previously held by Bombardier, Inc.) airplanes,
certificated in any category, and identified in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (4) of this AD.
    (1) Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes, as identified in
De Havilland Service Bulletin 8-27-123, Revision A, dated September
8, 2020.
    (2) Model DHC-8-201 and -202 airplanes, as identified in De
Havilland Service Bulletin 8-27-123, Revision A, dated September 8,
2020.
    (3) Model DHC-8-301, -311, and -315 airplanes, as identified in
De Havilland Service Bulletin 8-27-123, Revision A, dated September
8, 2020.
    (4) Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes, as identified in
De Havilland Service Bulletin 84-27-74, Revision B, dated September
8, 2020.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
controls.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports that mounting nuts attaching the
rudder actuator bracket to the vertical stabilizer have been found
cracked or missing due to hydrogen embrittlement. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address the possible loss of the rudder actuator bracket,
which could result in a dormant disconnection between the rudder
actuator and the vertical stabilizer. This condition, if not
addressed, could result in a loss of directional control of the
aircraft.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Within 8,000 flight hours or 4 years, whichever is earlier,
after the effective date of this AD: Do a detailed visual inspection
of the rudder actuator bracket mounting nuts for missing nuts or
corrosion, cracking, or other damage, in accordance with paragraph
3.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of De Havilland Service
Bulletin 8-27-123, Revision A, dated September 8, 2020; or De
Havilland Service Bulletin 84-27-74, Revision B, dated September 8,
2020; as applicable. If any missing nuts or corrosion, cracking, or
other damage is found, replace the nuts before further flight, in
accordance with paragraph 3.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of
De Havilland Service Bulletin 8-27-123, Revision A, dated September
8, 2020; or De Havilland Service Bulletin 84-27-74, Revision B,
dated September 8, 2020; as applicable.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using De Havilland Service Bulletin 8-27-123, dated
December 20, 2019; De Havilland Service Bulletin 84-27-74, dated
December 20, 2019; or De Havilland Service Bulletin 84-27-74,
Revision A, dated January 20, 2020; as applicable.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although De Havilland Service Bulletin 8-27-123, Revision A,
dated September 8, 2020; and De Havilland Service Bulletin 84-27-74,
Revision B, dated September 8, 2020, specify to submit certain
information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that
requirement.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If
sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or De
Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited's TCCA Design Approval
Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must
include the DAO-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) TCCA AD CF-2020-34, dated October 6, 2020, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2021-0312.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Aziz Ahmed,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA, New York
ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (l)(3) and (4) of this AD.

(l) 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) De Havilland Service Bulletin 8-27-123, Revision A, dated
September 8, 2020.
    (ii) De Havilland Service Bulletin 84-27-74, Revision B, dated
September 8, 2020.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact De
Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited, Q-Series Technical Help Desk,
123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone
416-375-4000; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]; internet
https://dehavilland.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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, email [email protected], or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on September 7, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-22292 Filed 10-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 132 (Monday, July 11, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40596-40597]
[FR Doc No: C1-2011-14344]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0853; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-116-AD;
Amendment 39-16720; AD 2011-12-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700,
-700C, -800, -900, and -900ER Series Airplanes

Correction

    In rule document 2011-14344 appearing on pages 35327-35330 in the
issue of June 17, 2011, make the following correction:
    The table on page 35329 should read:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement.................................  2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170              $0            $170
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. C1-2011-14344 Filed 7-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48071-48077]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19662]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0514; FRL-9998-98]

Pyraflufen-ethyl; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
pyraflufen-ethyl in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. In addition, certain existing
tolerances are removed as they are superseded by this action.
Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective September 12, 2019. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 12, 2019
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-2018-0514, 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: Michael Goodis, 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 EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Publishing 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-2018-0514 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 12, 2019. 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-2018-0514, 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. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of October 18, 2018, 83 FR 52787 (FRL-9984-
21), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
8E8684) by Interregional Research Project Number 4, IR-4 Headquarters,
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East,
Suite 201 W, Princeton, New Jersey 08540. The petition requests the
establishment of tolerances in 40 CFR 180.585 for residues of the
herbicide pyraflufen-ethyl in or on the following commodities:
cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.04 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing,
except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 0.01 ppm; fruit, stone,
group 12-12 at 0.01 ppm; hop, dried cones at 0.02 ppm; nut, tree, group
14-12 at 0.01 ppm; tropical and subtropical, small fruit, edible peel,
subgroup 23A at 0.01 ppm; and vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C
at 0.02 ppm. Upon establishment of the above tolerances, the petitioner
proposes to remove the existing tolerances for residues of pyraflufen-
ethyl in or on cotton, undelinted seed at 0.04 ppm; fruit, stone, group
12 at 0.01 ppm; grape at 0.01 ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at 0.01 ppm;
olive at 0.01 ppm; and pistachio at 0.01 ppm. That document referenced
a summary of the petition prepared by Nichino America, Inc., the
registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . .
. .''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for pyraflufen-ethyl including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with pyraflufen-
ethyl 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.
    Pyraflufen-ethyl exhibits relatively low acute toxicity for oral,
dermal, and inhalation exposure. It is moderately irritating to the eye
but is not a skin irritant or a dermal sensitizer.
    In repeat-dose oral studies, the liver, kidney, and hematopoietic
system are the target organs for pyraflufen-ethyl in the rat and the
mouse. Adverse effects were not noted in the dog following oral
exposure nor in the rat following dermal exposure. There is no evidence
of neurotoxicity following acute and subchronic dosing. In the
submitted immunotoxicity study, an immunosuppressant response was
observed only at dose levels approaching the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/
day. There was no evidence of increased susceptibility following pre-
natal exposure to rats and rabbits in the developmental toxicity
studies, nor following pre- and post-natal exposure to rats in the
multi-generation reproduction study.
    Pyraflufen-ethyl is classified as ``Likely to be Carcinogenic to
Humans'' based on the presence of liver tumors (hepatocellular
adenomas, carcinomas, and/or hepatoblastomas) in male and female mice.
A linear low-dose extrapolation approach (Q1* of 3.32 x
10-2 (milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day))-1) is
used to estimate human cancer risk.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by pyraflufen-ethyl as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``SUBJECT: Pyraflufen-ethyl. Human
Health Risk Assessment for a Section 3 Registration of New Food Use on
Hops and Conversions and Expansions of the Following Crop Groups: Nut,
Tree, Group 14-12, Fruit, Stone, Group 12-12, Fruit, Small, Vine
Climbing, Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit, Subgroup 13-07F, Vegetable, Tuberous
and Corm,

Subgroup lC, Tropical and Subtropical, Small Fruit, Edible Peel
Subgroup 23A and Cottonseed Subgroup 20C'' at pages 28-35 in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0514.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for pyraflufen-ethyl used
for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of February 27, 2013 (78 FR 13257)
(FRL-9379-6).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to pyraflufen-ethyl, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing pyraflufen-ethyl
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.585. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
pyraflufen-ethyl in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for
pyraflufen-ethyl; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure
assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's (USDA) 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA).
    A highly refined chronic non-cancer exposure assessment was
conducted. The Agency used residue estimates of 0.02 ppm for cottonseed
oil (\1/2\ tolerance); residue values of \1/2\ LOQ (limit of
quantitation) (supported by field trial and monitoring data) for all
other crops; and anticipated residues for livestock commodities
calculated using updated dietary burdens based on field trial data for
the livestock feed items. Percent crop treated (PCT) estimates and 2018
DEEM default processing factors were incorporated into the assessment.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that pyraflufen-ethyl should be classified as ``Likely to be
Carcinogenic to Humans'' and a linear approach has been used to
quantify cancer risk.
    A linear low-dose extrapolation approach is used to estimate human
cancer risk (Q1* of 3.32 x 10-\2\ (mg/kg/day)-1). The
exposure inputs for the cancer assessment were quantified using the
same estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii., chronic exposure, and
a drinking water estimate of 0.672 ppb was used.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and
information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in
food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect,
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, and the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The Agency used the following average percent crop treated
estimates for the chronic non-cancer and cancer analyses: 1% for
barley, beans (snap, bush, pole, and string), celery, corn, dry beans
and peas, onions, peanuts, pecans, potatoes, pumpkins, sorghum,
soybeans, squash, sunflowers, tomatoes, and walnuts; 2.5% for almonds,
apples, canola, cherries, lettuce, olive, and peach; 5% for cotton,
garlic, table grape, raisin, kiwi, pistachio, plum and prune; 10% for
wine grape, and pear; 20% for apricot, and fig; and 40% for
pomegranate. For all other commodities, 100% crop treated was used.
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and California Department of
Pesticide Regulation (CalDPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) for the
chemical/crop combination for the most recent 10 years. EPA uses an
average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis and a maximum PCT for
acute dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing
use is derived by combining available public and private market survey
data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding up
to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT
is less than 1% or less than 2.5%. In those cases, the Agency would use
less than 1% or less than 2.5% as the average PCT value, respectively.
The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported
within the most recent 10 years of available public and private market
survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple
of 5%, except where the maximum PCT is less than 2.5%, in which case,
the Agency uses less than 2.5% as the maximum PCT.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to

Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market
survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is
reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not
likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional
consumption information and consumption information for significant
subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model
for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including
several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's
risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows
the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is
exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency.
Other than the data available through national food consumption
surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the
regional consumption of food to which pyraflufen-ethyl may be applied
in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for pyraflufen-ethyl in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of pyraflufen-ethyl. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure
assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    The Pesticide in Water Calculator (PWC version 1.52) was utilized
to calculate all Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs). The
EDWCs were incorporated directly into this dietary exposure assessment.
Water residues were incorporated in the DEEM-FCID into the food
categories ``water, direct, all sources'' and ``water, indirect, all
sources.''
    Drinking water concentrations were estimated separately for chronic
and cancer durations. The highest EDWCs resulted from groundwater for
these durations.
    For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to
be 0.295 ppb for surface water and 0.672 ppb for ground water. For
chronic exposures for cancer assessments are estimated to be 0.268 ppb
for surface water and 0.672 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For both chronic and cancer
assessments, the highest EDWC of 0.672 ppb was used to assess the
dietary contribution from drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Pyraflufen-ethyl is currently registered for use by residential and
commercial applicators on several residential/non-agricultural use
sites; i.e., established ornamental turf lawns, parks, cemeteries,
athletic fields, golf courses, sod farms, nurseries and ornamental
plantings, and Christmas trees. There is the potential for residential
(post-application) exposure pathways via the oral, dermal, and
inhalation routes of exposure. Post-application dermal exposure (adults
and children 1 to <2 years old) was not assessed for non-cancer effects
since no toxicity was observed at the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day) in a
28-day dermal toxicity study in rats.
    Residential exposure is expected to be short-term (1 to 30 days) in
duration. The quantitative exposure assessment for residential non-
cancer post-application exposures is based on incidental (hand-to-
mouth) oral exposure (children 1 to <2 years old) from contact with
residues on lawns and turf scenario. While not the only lifestage
potentially exposed for these post-application scenarios, the lifestage
that is included in the quantitative assessment is health protective
for the exposures and risk estimates for any other potentially exposed
lifestage. The registered application rate for pyraflufen-ethyl on
lawns and turf was utilized in the assessing exposure.
    A dermal and inhalation cancer exposure assessment was performed
because dermal and inhalation exposure contributes to the overall
cancer risk for pyraflufen-ethyl. Further information regarding EPA
standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may
be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found pyraflufen-ethyl to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and pyraflufen-ethyl does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For
the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
pyraflufen-ethyl 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 website at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of
increased susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses following in utero
exposure in the developmental studies with pyraflufen-ethyl.
Developmental effects for both rats and rabbits occurred at either the
same dose levels or were above the NOAELs and LOAELs for maternal
toxicity. Similarly, there is no evidence of increased susceptibility
of young rats in the pyraflufen-ethyl 2-generation rat reproduction
study. The NOAEL for offspring effects was identical to that of the
parental animals. There are no residual uncertainties for pre- and/or
postnatal exposure.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for pyraflufen-ethyl is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that pyraflufen-ethyl is a neurotoxic
chemical based on results of acute and

subchronic neurotoxicity studies, and no neurotoxic effect was seen in
other toxicity studies. Therefore, there are no concerns for
neurotoxicity and no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. Developmental studies with pyraflufen-ethyl show no evidence
of increased susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses following in utero
exposure. Similarly, there is no evidence of increased susceptibility
of young rats in the pyraflufen-ethyl 2-generation rat reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed using
PCT data, where available; refined residue concentrations (generally
\1/2\ LOQ); anticipated residues in livestock commodities; and default
and empirical processing factors. EPA made conservative (protective)
assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess
exposure to pyraflufen-ethyl in drinking water. EPA used similarly
conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of adults
and children as well as incidental oral exposure of children. In
addition, the residential exposure assessment used surrogate study
data, including conservative exposure assumptions based on Day 0
dermal/oral contact to turf and surfaces treated at the maximum
application rate. These data are reliable and are not expected to
underestimate risks to adults or children.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
pyraflufen-ethyl is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
pyraflufen-ethyl from food and water will utilize <1% of the cPAD for
the general U.S. population and all population subgroups, including
children 1 to 2 years old, the most highly exposed population subgroup.
Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use
patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of pyraflufen-ethyl
is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Pyraflufen-
ethyl is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to pyraflufen-ethyl.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA concluded there is potential short-term exposure to
pyraflufen-ethyl via dietary and residential exposure pathways. For
adults, these pathways lead to exposure via oral and inhalation routes.
EPA chose the most conservative scenario, children 1 to 2 years old
with hand-to-mouth exposure from treated turf as well as the
subpopulation with the highest chronic dietary exposure resulting in an
aggregate MOE of 69,000. Because EPA's level of concern for pyraflufen-
ethyl is a MOE of 100 or below, this MOE is not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
pyraflufen-ethyl is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term
risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus
chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term
residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been
assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as
protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no
further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA
relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating
intermediate-term risk for pyraflufen-ethyl.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The aggregate cancer
risk assessment for the general U.S. population considers exposure
estimates from dietary consumption of pyraflufen-ethyl in food and
drinking water and exposure through residential uses of pyraflufen-
ethyl. Exposures from residential uses are based on the lifetime
average daily dose and assume an exposure period of 2 days per year and
35 years of exposure over a 78-year lifetime. Average food and water
exposure to pyraflufen-ethyl was used in the aggregate cancer
assessment. Estimated cancer risk for the general U.S. population
includes infants and children; therefore, a children's cancer risk
estimate was not reported separately. For a description of the
residential exposure scenarios considered in the aggregate assessment,
see section 6.3. The aggregate cancer risk estimate for pyraflufen-
ethyl is 1.1 x 10-6. The Agency generally considers risks up
to 3 x 10-6 to be within the negligible risk range and below
the Agency's LOC. Therefore, the aggregate cancer risk estimate from
pyraflufen-ethyl residues in food and drinking water is not of concern
to EPA for the general U.S. population. This is a conservative estimate
of pyraflufen-ethyl exposure based on the inputs to the dietary and
residential exposure assessments.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to pyraflufen-ethyl residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methods are available. Gas chromatography/mass
spectroscopy (GC/MS) analytical methods determine Metabolite E-1 as its
methyl ester (E-15) and monitor two ion transitions each for
pyraflufen-ethyl and the E-15 analyte. The methods also contain
appendices that provide parameters for other detection schemes such as
GC/electron-capture detection (ECD), GC/nitrogen-phosphorus detection
(NPD), and GC/MS/MS.
    The methods may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food

safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the
international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex
Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section
408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established any MRLs for pyraflufen-ethyl.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of pyraflufen-
ethyl, ethyl 2-[2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-1H-
pyrazol-3-yl]-4-fluorophenoxy] acetate, including its metabolites and
degradates. Compliance with these tolerances is to be determined by
measuring only the sum of the parent pyraflufen-ethyl, and its acid
metabolite, E-1,2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-1H-
pyrazol-3-yl)-4-fluorophenoxyacetic acid, calculated as the
stoichiometric equivalent of pyraflufen-ethyl in or on commodities:
Cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.04 ppm; Fruit, small, vine climbing,
except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 0.01 ppm; Fruit, stone,
group 12-12 at 0.01 ppm; Hop, dried cones at 0.02 ppm; Nut, tree, group
14-12 at 0.01 ppm; Tropical and subtropical, small fruit, edible peel,
subgroup 23A at 0.01 ppm and Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C
at 0.02 ppm. In addition, existing tolerances on Cotton, undelinted
seed; Fruit, stone, group 12; Grape; Nut, tree, group 14; Olive;
Pistachio; and Potato are removed as they are superseded by this
regulation.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this 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), nor is it considered a
regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017). 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 tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances 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).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: August 30, 2019.
Donna Davis,
Acting 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.  180.585, amend the table in paragraph (a) as follows:
0
i. Add alphabetically the entries ``Cottonseed subgroup 20C''; ``Fruit,
small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F'';
``Fruit, stone, group 12-12''; ``Hop, dried cones''; ``Nut, tree, group
14-12''; ``Tropical and subtropical, small fruit, edible peel, subgroup
23A''; and ``Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C''.
0
ii. Remove the entries for ``Cotton, undelinted seed''; ``Fruit, stone,
group 12''; ``Grape''; ``Nut, tree, group 14''; ``Olive'';
``Pistachio''; and ``Potato''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  180.585  Pyraflufen-ethyl; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Cottonseed subgroup 20C.................................            0.04

                                * * * * *
Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit,                0.01
 subgroup 13-07F........................................

                                * * * * *
Fruit, stone, group 12-12...............................            0.01

                                * * * * *
Hop, dried cones........................................            0.02

                                * * * * *
Nut, tree, group 14-12..................................            0.01

                                * * * * *
Tropical and subtropical, small fruit, edible peel,                 0.01
 subgroup 23A...........................................
Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C...............            0.02

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-19662 Filed 9-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P