[Federal Register: January 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 18)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4512-4518]
[DOCID:fr27ja06-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0515; FRL-7757-2]

Sorbitol Octanoate; 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 the biochemical sorbitol octanoate on
all food commodities when applied/used in accordance with label
directions. AVA Chemical Ventures, L. L. C. submitted a petition to EPA
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by
the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), requesting an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the
need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of sorbitol
octanoate.

DATES: This regulation is effective January 27, 2006. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before March 28, 2006.

ADDRESSES: To submit a written objection or hearing request follow the
detailed instructions as provided in Unit VIII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0515. All documents in the
docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. (EDOCKET, EPA's

electronic public docket and comment system was replaced on November
25, 2005, by an enhanced federal-wide electronic docket management and
comment system located at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the

online instructions.) Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the
Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119,
Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This docket
facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-
5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Greenway, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511C), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document and Other
Related Information?

    In addition to using EDOCKET (http://www.epa.gov/edocket/), you may

access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA
Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
 A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180

is available at E-CFR Beta Site Two at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of September 29, 2004 (69 FR 58166) (FRL-
7679-1), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of the
FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide
tolerance petition (PP 2E6389) by AVA Chemical Ventures, L. L. C., 80
Rochester Avenue, Suite 214, Portsmouth, NH, 03801. The petition
requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of sorbitol octanoate.
This notice included a summary of the petition prepared by the
petitioner AVA Chemical Ventures, L. L. C. There were no comments
received in response to the notice of filing.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of the 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 exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the 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. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
section 408(b)(2)(C), which require 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....''
Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA requires that 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 performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed
the available scientific data and other relevant information in support
of this action and considered its validity, completeness, and
reliability, and the relationship of this information 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.
    Sorbitol octanoate is a fatty acid ester made from sorbitol and
caprylic acid. Caprylic acid, also known as octanoic acid, is a common
fatty acid in plants that is derived from edible oils or fats. It also
is produced in small quantities in the human body and is marketed as a
human dietary supplement (Ref. 1). Sorbitol, a food grade sweetener
with about half the sweetness of sucrose, is a hexahydric alcohol and
occurs naturally in fruits such as apples, plums, pears, cherries,
dates, peaches, and apricots (Ref. 2). Both sorbitol and octanoic acid
are on the Agency's List 4 Inerts of Minimal Concern. Sorbitol is
cleared for food use in unlimited quantities as an antidusting agent
(40 CFR 180.910). While sorbitol octanoate is the subject of this final
rule, the raw materials from which it is made are common in crops eaten
regularly by humans and animals.
    Furthermore, sorbitol octanoate is chemically and toxicologically
similar to certain groups of compounds, namely certain sorbitan esters
and certain sucrose octanoate esters that have been FDA-approved since
1983 when used as direct additives in food, as emulsifiers in certain
processed foods, and as post-harvest protective coatings for certain
fruits (21 CFR 172.836, 172.838, 172.840, 172.842 and 172.859). In
1995, FDA expanded the range of foods in which sucrose octanoate esters
(SOEs) are permitted (August 29, 1995, 60 FR 44756). Sorbitol octanoate
and SOEs both are fatty acid esters, and both are made by reacting
sugars with octanoic acid (i.e., both are non-ionic surfactants
manufactured by esterifying C8 fatty acid with a sugar:
sorbitol in the case of sorbitol octanoate and sucrose in the case of
SOEs). Sorbitol octanoate and SOEs have similar solubility in water,
similar degrees of stability, and require a similar concentration to
achieve droplet spread. FDA-approved sorbitan esters are different from
sorbitol octanoate only in that sorbitol has one more water molecule
than sorbitan. Therefore, the toxicological data associated with SOEs
and sorbitan esters can be used to support an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for sorbitol octanoate.
    The applicant collected and summarized the toxicological data
associated with the cited FDA food-use approvals for SOEs which
included sorbitan esters (as they are chemically similar), and
submitted this information in support of an earlier tolerance exemption
request (64 FR 49010, September 9, 1999) for SOEs (Ref. 3). In turn,
the Agency reviewed and accepted both the summaries and the underlying
data in granting the tolerance exemption for SOEs (67 FR 60146,
September 25, 2002). Because of the substantial similarity between the
two active

ingredients (i.e., sorbitol octanoate and SOEs), the Agency allowed the
applicant to ``bridge'' to that previously-submitted data/information
to support the tolerance exemption requested for sorbitol octanoate.
    Toxicity information/data submitted in support of this tolerance
exemption are referenced below. Toxicity data requirements that relate
to or aggregate with human dietary risk were addressed by requests for
data waivers, which were based on publically available information/data
that were previously submitted by the applicant, and reviewed and
accepted by the Agency, in support of the tolerance exemption that the
Agency granted for the chemically-similar SOEs (Refs. 3, 4, and 6). In
addition, the Agency found relevant data from additional public
sources, including EPA's National Toxicology Program, which contributed
to the Agency's review (Ref. 1). All of this information/data, which,
in combination, was equivalent to what would normally be provided by
guideline studies, and therefore would likely have been adequate to
meet each toxicology requirement had they been submitted as such
pursuant to 40 CFR 152.90(b)(4), was deemed adequate to support the
waiver requests. Sorbitan esters and sucrose fatty acid esters, which
are used as food emulsifiers and as post-harvest fruit protectants,
have been found to be of no particular toxic concern in studies used to
support their safety to the FDA. Sorbitol octanoate is different from
the FDA-approved sorbitan esters in that octanoate is the sole fatty
acid component and sorbitan anhydrides are derived from sorbitol by
removal of one molecule of water. Therefore, results from studies on
sorbitan esters can be used to support lack of toxicity concern with
sorbitol octanoate. Sorbitol octanoate also rapidly hydrolyzes to
sorbitol and octanoic acid, both of which are common human dietary
components of no toxicological concern. Both sorbitol and octanoic acid
are included in EPA's List 4 inert ingredients, and thus are of minimal
concern. Sucrose octanoate has previously been registered by EPA (EPA
Reg. No. 70950-2). The rationales for waiver requests for all required
mammalian toxicological studies are acceptable. More detailed analyses
of these data and information can be found in specific Agency reviews
of the studies and technical literature (Refs. 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9).
    1. Acute oral toxicity waiver (OPPTS 870.1100) MRID 444158-03, and
amendment number 1. Acute oral and dietary toxicity data, previously
evaluated in three publications by the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) of the United Nations World Health Organization
(WHO), were submitted in support of this data waiver request (Refs. 3
and 4). The data contained in these reports demonstrated that sorbitan
esters and sucrose octanoate esters had extremely low oral toxicity (in
laboratory studies), even at concentrations substantially higher than
are found in human food.
    In studies with rats and humans, it was demonstrated that sorbitan
esters and sucrose octanoate esters were rapidly hydrolyzed and
absorbed by the body. Sorbitol octanoate is different from the sorbitan
esters approved by FDA for direct addition to food for human
consumption in the degree to which water is removed during the
manufacturing process and the specific fatty acid that is used to make
the esters. Sorbitan is a generic name for anhydrides (cyclic ether
tetrahydric alcohols) derived from sorbitol by removal of one molecule
of water. Octanoic acid is used to make sorbitol octanoate, but the
sorbitan esters are made with mixtures of several longer-chain fatty
acids. Sorbitan monopalmitate in the diet of rats; sorbitan
monostearate in the diet of rats; sorbitan tristearate administered to
rats by gavage; and sorbitan monopalmitate, sorbitan monostearate, and
sorbitan tristearate in rats (maximum oral dose) caused no toxic
symptoms/mortality. The acute oral LD50s for monoleate and
sorbitan monolaurate in rats were 39.8 and 37.5 grams/kilogram (g/kg),
respectively. An estimate of acceptable daily intake in man of 0-25
milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) was set by the Expert Committee on Food
Additives. Sorbitol octanoate hydrolyzed rapidly to sorbitol and
octanoic acid. The LD50s for sorbitol in mice/rats dosed
intravenously or orally ranged from 7,100 to 25,700 mg/kg,
respectively. The oral LD50s for octanoic acid were 1,283
mg/kg (one study, male rats) and 10,080 mg/kg (another study, male and
female rats), amounts far greater than humans would encounter via the
oral exposure route from pesticidal use of sorbitol octanoate. Sorbitol
(21 CFR 184.1835) and ocatanoic acid (21 CFR 184.1025) are classified
as GRAS by the FDA and are in EPA's List 4 - Inerts of Minimal Concern.
Because sorbitol octanoate is chemically similar to SOEs, for which an
exemption from tolerance already is established, and octanoic acid is a
sorbitol octanoate constituent/degradate of no toxicological concern,
the information/data described above support waiver from the data
requirements for acute oral toxicity studies (classification:
acceptable; Toxicity Category IV for the manufacturing-use product and
end-use product).
    2. Acute dermal toxicity waiver (OPPTS 870.1200) MRID 444158-03 and
amendment number 1. A data waiver was granted for this guideline study
based on the strength of the supporting information/data submitted by
the registrant in connection with the tolerance exemption granted for
SOEs, which as noted above are chemically and toxicologically similar
to sorbitol octanoate. Also, dermal toxicity data on the sorbitan
esters is relevant to sorbitol octanoate. The only difference between
the sorbitan esters used in cosmetics and sorbitol octanoate is in the
degree to which water is removed during the manufacturing process.
Sorbitan fatty acid esters were generally minimal to mild skin
irritants in animals and humans. In addition, publically available
sources list the rabbit dermal LD50 for octanoic acid (a
sorbitol octanoate constituent/degradate of no toxicological concern)
as > 5,000 mg/kg (Ref. 1), an amount far greater than humans would
encounter via the dermal exposure route from pesticidal use of sorbitol
octanoate and which places it in the Toxicity Category of no concern
(IV) (classification: acceptable; Toxicity Category IV for the
manufacturing-use product and end-use product).
    3. Acute inhalation toxicity waiver (OPPTS 870.1300) MRID 444158-03
and Amendment number 1. A data waiver was granted for this guideline
study based on the strength of the supporting information/data
submitted by the registrant in connection with the tolerance exemption
granted for SOEs, which as noted above are chemically and
toxicologically similar to sorbitol octanoate (Refs. 1,3,4 and 6). No
adverse effects have been reported by researchers working with sorbitol
octanoate, and the compound is not volatile. The sorbitol octanoate
constituents sorbitol and octanoic acid are classified as Generally
Recognized as Safe (GRAS) by the FDA and are among EPA's List 4 Inerts
of Minimal Concern. The chemically-similar sorbitan fatty acid esters
are waxy solids or viscous liquids which cannot be inhaled
(classification: acceptable; Toxicity Category IV for the
manufacturing-use product and end-use product).
    4. Hypersensitivity study waiver (OPPTS 870.2600) MRID 455973-01.
No hypersensitivity incidents have been reported for laboratory workers
regularly exposed to sorbitol octanoate for up to 7 years. Neither have
there been reports of hypersensitivity from

those working with the chemically-similar sucrose octanoate. A waiver
for conduct of a dermal sensitization study for sorbitol octanoate thus
can be supported. In addition, the registrant is obliged under the
Federal Insecticide,Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) section
6(a)(2) to notify the Agency in the event of such incidents
(classification: acceptable).
    5. Genotoxicity and mutagenicity waiver (OPPTS 870.5300, 870.5195)
MRID 444158-03 and amendment number 1. No guideline studies were
submitted, but it was determined that none are required because
acceptable information/data were submitted from the open technical
literature to scientifically justify a waiver of the data requirements
for genotoxicity and mutagenicity. This information/data demonstrate
that SOEs and sorbitol octanoate (because of their chemical and
toxicological similarities) are not genotoxic and/or mutagenic, nor is
the active ingredient structurally and/or chemically similar to known
mutagens or known classes of mutagens (Refs. 3, 4 and 6). In addition,
a study reported by EPA's National Toxicology Program shows octanoic
acid, a sorbitol octanoate constituent/degradate of no toxicological
concern, to be negative for genotoxicity/mutagenicity (Ref. 1)
(classification: acceptable).
    6. Other data requirements waived. Immune response and all
remaining Tier I biochemical toxicology data requirements that relate
to or aggregate with human dietary risk were waived (see OPPTS 880.3800
through 870.4200, MRID 444158-03 and amendment number 1) due to the low
toxicity of the chemically similar SOEs, as reported in the open
technical literature (Refs. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7). In addition, octanoic
acid, a sorbitol octanoate constituent/degradate of no toxicological
concern, is considered a nonteratogenic compound even at the very high
dose rate of 18.75 millimoles/kg (Ref. 1).

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of the FFDCA directs
EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the
pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures,
including drinking water from ground water or surface water and
exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings
(residential and other indoor uses).

A. Dietary Exposure

    1. Food. An Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of SOEs for humans was
estimated by FAO/WHO to be up to 16 mg/kg body weight/day, which is
equivalent to 1.28 kg of SOEs per day for a 176 lb person (Refs. 3, 4,
and 6). There are no reasonably foreseeable circumstances in which the
residue levels of SOEs or the chemically- and toxicologically-similar
compound sorbitol octanoate would ever approach this amount. Sorbitol
octanoate hydrolyzes into its constituents (sorbitol and octanoic acid)
shortly after application and then biodegrades. In studies with rats
and humans, it was demonstrated that SOEs were rapidly hydrolyzed and
absorbed by the body (Ref. 6). Because sorbitol octanoate is made from
sorbitol (present in certain fruits) and caprylic acid (derived from
edible oils and fats), there is a great likelihood of exposure in the
normal human diet to both SOEs (derived from sugar and edible tallow or
edible vegetable oils) and sorbitol octanoate, and their components for
most, if not all, individuals, including infants and children. Sorbitol
and octanoic acid are common components of the human diet. Thus,
sorbitol octanoate may be considered a normal part of the human diet.
To date, there have been no reports of any hypersensitivity incidents
or reports of any known adverse reactions in humans resulting from
exposure to either SOEs (which for years have been FDA-approved food
emulsifiers) or the chemically-similar sorbitol octanoate. Even if
there is a significant increase in dietary exposure to sorbitol
octanoate due to its use as a pesticide, the acute toxicity information
from the National Toxicology Program and the information submitted by
the registrant demonstrating extremely low mammalian toxicity (Toxicity
Category IV) for SOEs (which, again, are chemically similar to sorbitol
octanoate) indicate that any possible risk associated with acute
exposures by the oral, dermal and inhalation routes to sorbitol
octanoate would be low to non-existent. Further, any increased exposure
due to the proposed products would be negligible because the active
ingredient sorbitol octanoate will rapidly hydrolyze into its
constituent components (sorbitol and octanoic acid), which subsequently
will be rapidly metabolized by soil bacteria, thus limiting the general
public's contact with treated plants or food products.
    2. Drinking water exposure. No drinking water exposure is expected.
Sorbitol octanoate is not applied directly to water, does not persist
in the environment and biodegrades following application/use. Even if
sorbitol octanoate residues were to enter drinking water, we do not
expect any significant risk since sorbitol octanoate will rapidly
hydroloyze into its consituent components (sorbitol and octanoic acid),
which then would biodegrade prior to consumption by microorganisms
before the general public would contact drinking water containing
residues of sorbitol octanoate.

B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure

    The potential for non-dietary exposure to sorbitol octanoate
residues for the general population, including infants and children, is
unlikely because the uses are limited to applications to horticultural
and agricultural crops. The sorbitol octanoate constituents sorbitol
and octanoic acid are normal parts of the human diet. Sorbitol
octanoate toxicity from a dietary exposure standpoint has been
determined to be extremely low. Therefore, while there exists a great
likelihood of prior exposure for most, if not all, individuals to both
sorbitol octanoate and SOEs, any increased non-occupational exposure
due to the proposed products would be negligible because the active
ingredient sorbitol octanoate will rapidly hydrolyze into its
constituent components (sorbitol and octanoic acid) which will be
rapidly metabolized by soil bacteria, thus limiting the general
public's contact with treated plants or food products via the dermal or
inhalation routes.

V. Cumulative Effects

    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.'' These considerations include the
possible cumulative effects of such residues on infants and children.
    Except through ocular exposure, which is only expected in the
occupational setting and can be prevented by the use of protective
eyewear, neither sorbitol octanoate nor SOEs are toxic, and it is not
anticipated that there would be cumulative effects from common
mechanisms of toxicity. EPA does not have, at this time, available data
to suggest whether sorbitol octanoate has a common mechanism of
toxicity with other substances. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA
has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of
toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity

finding as to sorbitol octanoate and any other substances and sorbitol
octanoate does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by
other substances. For the purpose of this tolerance action, therefore,
EPA has not assumed that sorbitol octanoate has a common mechanism of
toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts
to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to
evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy
statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning
common mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects
from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's web site at
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Determination of Safety for U.S Population, Infants and Children

    1. U.S. population. The Agency has determined that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to residues of sorbitol octanoate to the U.S. population. This includes
all anticipated dietary exposures and other non-occupational exposures
for which there is reliable information. The Agency arrived at this
conclusion based on the extremely low levels of mammalian dietary
toxicity associated with SOEs and, by extension, sorbitol octanoate due
to the fact it is nearly identical chemically. Accordingly, it is
unlikely that any toxic effects will result from exposure to sorbitol
octanoate via the oral, dermal or inhalation pathways when the
registered sorbitol octanoate products are used according to proposed
label directions (Ref. 6). Based upon the data submitted in connection
with SOEs and, by extension, the chemically-similar compound sorbitol
octanoate, the amount of sorbitol octanoate applied to food crops is
many orders of magnitude lower than the concentrations of sorbitol
octanoate needed to cause toxicological effects. Because the worst case
scenario exposure is far below the level of any dietary toxicity known
for SOEs or sorbitol octanoate, or their components and degradates, EPA
has determined that residues will not pose a dietary risk under
reasonably foreseeable circumstances and that granting a tolerance
exemption is appropriate.
    2. Infants and children. FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall
apply an additional tenfold margin of exposure for infants and children
in the case of threshold effects unless the Agency determines, based on
reliable data, that a different margin is safe. Margins of exposure are
referred to as uncertainty or safety factors, and are used to account
for potential prenatal and postnatal toxicity and any lack of
completeness in the data base. Based on all the reliable available
information the Agency reviewed on SOEs and, by extension, sorbitol
octanoate due to the fact that it is nearly identical chemically, the
Agency concludes that sorbitol octanoate is practically non-toxic to
mammals from a dietary standpoint, including infants and children.
Thus, there are no threshold effects of concern and an additional
margin of safety is not necessary to protect infants and children.

VII. Other Considerations

A. Endocrine Disruptors

    EPA is required under the FFDCA as amended by FQPA, to develop a
screening program to determine whether certain substances (including
all pesticide active and other ingredients) ``may have an effect in
humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring
estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may
designate.'' Following the recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor
Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC), EPA determined that
there is no scientific basis for including, as part of the program, the
androgen and thyroid hormone systems in addition to the estrogen
hormone system. EPA also adopted EDSTAC's recommendation that the
program include evaluations of potential effects in wildlife. For
pesticide chemicals, EPA will use FIFRA and, to the extent that effects
in wildlife may help determine whether a substance may have an effect
in humans, FFDCA authority to require wildlife evaluations. As the
science develops and resources allow, screening of additional hormone
systems may be added to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program
(EDSP). When the appropriate screening and/or testing protocols being
considered under the Agency's EDSP have been developed, sorbitol
octanoate may be subjected to additional screening and/or testing to
better characterize effects related to endocrine disruption. Based on
available data, no endocrine system-related effects have been
identified with consumption of sorbitol octanoate. To date, there is no
evidence to suggest that sorbitol octanoate affects the immune system,
functions in a manner similar to any known hormone, or that it acts as
an endocrine disruptor.

B. Analytical Method(s)

    The Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation for the reasons stated
above, including low toxicity and low exposure from the pesticidal use
of sorbitol octanoate. For the same reasons, the Agency concludes that
an analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes for
sorbitol octanoate.

C. Codex Maximum Residue Level

    There are no CODEX maximum residue levels for sorbitol octanoate.

VIII. Conclusions

    Based on the toxicology information/data submitted and other
information available to the Agency, there is a reasonable certainty
that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to residues of
sorbitol octanoate to the U.S. population, including infants and
children, under reasonably foreseeable circumstances, when the
biochemical pesticide is used in accordance with product label
directions and good agricultural practices. This includes all
anticipated dietary exposures and all other non-occupational exposures
for which there is reliable information. The Agency has arrived at this
conclusion based on the information/data submitted (and publically
available) demonstrating negligible toxicity of the chemically-similar
SOEs and sorbitan esters, and of sorbitol octanoate's constituents
(sorbitol and octanoic acid). As a result, EPA is establishing an
exemption from the tolerance requirements pursuant to FFDCA section
408(c) for residues of sorbitol octanoate in or on all food
commodities.

IX. Objections and Hearing Requests

    Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any
person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may
also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural
regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those
regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to
the FFDCA by the FQPA, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with
appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made.
The new section 408(g) of the FFDCA provides essentially the same
process for persons to ``object'' to a regulation for an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d)
of the FFDCA, as was provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of the
FFDCA. However, the period

for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.

A. What Do I Need to Do to File an Objection or Request a Hearing?

    You must file your objection or request a hearing on this
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit
and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0515 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and
must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before March 28,
2006.
    1. Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific
provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for
the objections (40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the
objections must include a statement of the factual issues(s) on which a
hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a
summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27).
Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing
request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that
information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be
disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.
    Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. You may also deliver your request to the
Office of the Hearing Clerk in Suite 350, 1099 14th St.,
NW., Washington, DC 20005. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit IX.A.1.,
you should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its
inclusion in the official record that is described in ADDRESSES. Mail
your copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0515, to:
Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Technology
and Resources Management Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the
location of the PIRIB described in ADDRESSES. You may also send an
electronic copy of your request via e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters
and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing
requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII
file format. Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may
also submit an electronic copy of your request at many Federal
Depository Libraries.

B. When Will the Agency Grant a Request for a Hearing?

    A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator
determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a
genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable
possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would,
if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the
requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the
contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought
by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40
CFR 178.32).

X. References

    1. USEPA. Brief summary of toxicity information to support
registration/tolerance exemptions for sucrose octanoate. R. S. Jones to
D. Greenway; August 8, 2002.
    2. Lawson, M.E. 1997. Kirk-Othmer's Encyl Chem Tech. 4th Ed. J.I.
Kroschwitz (ed). John Wiley & Sons, NY.
    3. Barrington, T., and C. L. Hartman. Sucrose fatty acid esters-
Safety data in support of petition proposing a temporary (sic)
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for use in all food
commodities (MRID 444158-03); October 2, 1997.
    4. Barrington, T. and W. L. Biehn. Sucrose fatty acid esters-safety
data in support of petition proposing an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for use in all food commodities, Amendment number 1 to
MRID 444158-03; July 13, 1998.
    5. Barrington, A. Waiver request; July 12, 2002.
    6. USEPA. Science review in support of registration of sucrose
octanoate esters. R.S. Jones to D. Greenway; February 14, 2000.
    7. USEPA. Sucrose octanoate esters; A request for concurrence on a
decision to waive the requirement for 90-day feeding study (870.3100)
and Developmental Toxicity (Teratogenicity (870.3700) studies, based on
the Registrant's correspondence of July 12, 2002. D. Greenway to R. S.
Jones; August 7, 2002.
    8. USEPA. Secondary Review of Data/information submitted to support
Registration of Sorbitol Octanoate R.D. Sjoblad to D. Greenway;
December 29, 2004
    9. USEPA. Endangered Species Risk Assessment for Sorbitol
Octanoate. R. S. Jones to D. Greenway; September 13, 2005.

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes an exemption from the tolerance
requirement under section 408(d) of the FFDCA in response to a petition
submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive
Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001). This final rule does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable duty or
contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). 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);
or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not
involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration
of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA),
Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since
tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a
petition under section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 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. In addition, the Agency has determined that this
action will not have a

substantial direct effect on 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, as specified
in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects 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.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency
has determined that this rule does not have any ``tribal implications''
as described in Executive Order 13175, entitledConsultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6,
2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.''
``Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive
order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.''
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule.

XII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. This final
rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: January 13, 2006.
James Jones,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.1262 is added to subpart D to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1262  Sorbitol octanoate; exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance.

    An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for
residues of sorbitol octanoate in or on all food commodities when used
in accordance with label directions.

[FR Doc. 06-756 Filed 1-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 9734]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04588]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR18-15-000]

Andeavor Field Services, LLC v. Mid-America Pipeline Company,
LLC, Enterprise Products Operating LLC; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on February 27, 2018, pursuant to Rule 206 of the
Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission),\1\ section 343.2 of the Procedural Rules
Applicable to Oil Pipeline Proceedings,\2\ and sections 1(4), 1(6), 2,
3(1), 6(1), 6(3), 6(7), 13(1), 15(1) and 15(13) of the Interstate
Commerce Act,\3\ Andeavor Field Services, LLC (Andeavor Field Services
or Complainant) filed a formal complaint against Mid-America Pipeline
Company, LLC (MAPL) and Enterprise Products Operating LLC, (Enterprise)
(jointly, Respondents) alleging that, MAPL's interpretation of a Term
Service Agreement violates Commission policy and that MAPL unlawfully
seized Complainant's line fill, all as more fully explained in the
complaint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.206 (2017).
    \2\ 18 CFR 343.2.
    \3\ 49 App. U.S.C. 1(4), 1(6), 2, 3(1), 6(1), 6(3), 6(7), 13(1),
15(1) and 15(13) (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Complainant states that a copy of the complaint has been served
on the Respondents.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
``eSubscription'' link on the website that enables subscribers to
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 29, 2018.

    Dated: February 28, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-04588 Filed 3-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 113)]
[Notices]
[Page 34170-34171]
[DOCID:fr13jn06-106]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension:
    Regulation S-P; OMB Control No. 3235-0537; and SEC File No. 270-
480.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities

and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') requests for extension of the
previously approved collection of information discussed below.
     Regulation S-P--Privacy of Consumer Financial Information.
    The Commission adopted Regulation S-P (17 CFR part 248) under the
authority set forth in section 504 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15
U.S.C. 6804), sections 17 and 23 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78q, 78w), sections 31 and 38 of the Investment Company Act
of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-30(a), 80a-37), and sections 204 and 211 of the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-4, 80b-11). Regulation
S-P implements the requirements of Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act (``Act''), which include the requirement that at the time of
establishing a customer relationship with a consumer and not less than
annually during the continuation of such relationship, a financial
institution shall provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure to such
consumer of such financial institution's policies and practices with
respect to disclosing nonpublic personal information to affiliates and
nonaffiliated third parties (``privacy notice''). Title V of the Act
also provides that, unless an exception applies, a financial
institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information of a
consumer to a nonaffiliated third party unless the financial
institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer that
such information may be disclosed to such third party; the consumer is
given the opportunity, before the time that such information is
initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed
to such third party; and the consumer is given an explanation of how
the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option (``opt out
notice''). The privacy notices required by the Act are mandatory. The
opt out notices are not mandatory for financial institutions that do
not share nonpublic personal information with nonaffiliated third
parties except as permitted under an exception to the statute's opt out
provisions. Regulation S-P implements the statute's requirements with
respect to broker-dealers, investment companies, and registered
investment advisers (``covered entities''). The Act and Regulation S-P
also contain consumer reporting requirements. In order for consumers to
opt out, they must respond to opt out notices. At any time during their
continued relationship, consumers have the right to change or update
their opt out status. Most covered entities do not share nonpublic
personal information with nonaffiliated third parties and therefore are
not required to provide opt out notices to consumers under Regulation
S-P. Therefore, few consumers are required to respond to opt out
notices under the rule.
    Currently, there are approximately 20,434 covered entities
(approximately 6,280 registered broker-dealers, 4,939 investment
companies, and, out of a total of 10,210 registered investment
advisers, 9,215 registered investment advisers that are not also
registered broker-dealers) that must prepare or revise the annual and
initial privacy notices they provide to their customers. To prepare or
revise their privacy notices, each of the approximately 11,219 covered
entities that is a broker-dealer or investment company requires an
estimated 40 hours at a cost of $2,424 (32 hours of professional time
at $70 per hour plus 8 hours of clerical or administrative time at $23
per hour) and each of the approximately 9,215 covered entities that is
an investment adviser but not also a broker-dealer requires an
estimated 5 hours at a cost of $303 (4 hours of professional time at
$70 per hour plus 1 hour of clerical or administrative time at $23 per
hour). Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 494,835 hours (40
hours for 11,219 broker-dealers and investment companies, and 5 hours
for 9,215 investment advisers that are not also broker-dealers x 11,219
= 448,760, 5 x 9,215 x 46,075, and 448,760 + 46,075 x 494,835), and
$29,987,001 ($2,424 x 11,219 = $27,194,856, $303 x 9,215 = $2,792,145,
and $27,194,856 + $2,792,145 = $29,987,001).
    The wage estimates of $70 per hour for professional time and $23
per hour for clerical or administrative time used in the foregoing
calculations are based on estimated mean hourly wages of $68.23 for
lawyers and $22.56 for all other legal support workers in the U.S.
Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics' November 2004
National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimate,
NAICS 523100--Securities and Commodity Contracts Intermediation and
Brokerage (available online, as of March 2, 2006, at http://www.bls.gov/oes/
 current/naics4--523100.htm) adjusted upward for

inflation by 2.5% based on the percentage increase in the employment
cost indexes for white collar workers and for administrative support,
including clerical, workers from December 2004 to December 2005, as
reported in the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics'
Employment Cost Index for wages and salaries for private industry
workers by industry and occupational group (not seasonally adjusted)
(available online, as of March 2, 2006, at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.t06.htm
).

    Compliance with Regulation S-P is necessary for covered entities to
achieve compliance with the consumer financial privacy notice
requirements of Title V of the Act. The required consumer notices are
not submitted to the Commission. Because the notices do not involve a
collection of information by the Commission, Regulation S-P does not
involve the collection of confidential information. Regulation S-P does
not have a record retention requirement per se, although the notices to
consumers it requires are subject to the recordkeeping requirements of
Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid control number.
    Comments should be directed to (1) the Desk Officer for the SEC,
Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by
sending an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey
Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange
Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria,
Virginia 22312 or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments
must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: June 5, 2006.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-9152 Filed 6-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


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

General Comment: Dear Mr. Zeller:

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

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about the benefits of e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I have not smoked tobacco cigarettes in 15 months and I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

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

Thank you, Jason C. Oetting


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 66 (Thursday, April 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14712-14713]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06998]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property
at the South Valley Regional Airport, Salt Lake City, UT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the
release of land at the South Valley Regional Airport, Salt Lake City,
UT.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 7, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Mr. John P. Bauer, Manager, Federal
Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Airports Division,
Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E 68th Avenue, Suite 224,
Denver, CO 80249-6361.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must

be mailed or delivered to Mr. Joel Nelson, Salt Lake City Department of
Airports, Salt Lake City, UT, at the following address: Mr. Joel
Nelson, Airport Property and Real Estate Manager, Salt Lake City
Department of Airports, P.O. Box 145550, Salt Lake City, UT 84114.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Marc Miller, Colorado State
Engineer/Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration,
Northwest Mountain Region, Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E
68th Avenue, Suite 224, Denver, CO 80249-6361,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The request to release property may be reviewed, by appointment, in
person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release property at the South Valley Regional Airport under
the provisions of the AIR 21 (49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2)).
    On March 23, 2018, the FAA determined that the request to release
property at the South Valley Regional Airport submitted by the Salt
Lake City Department of Airports meets the procedural requirements of
the Federal Aviation Administration.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The Salt Lake City Department of Airports is proposing the release
from the terms, conditions, reservations, and restrictions on
approximately 4.26 acres of federally obligated land at the South
Valley Regional Airport. A small portion of the New Bingham Highway
will be re-routed from inside of the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) to
the outside and west of the RPZ. This portion of the New Bingham
Highway, now inside the RPZ, will be vacated and turned over to airport
ownership and maintenance. An additional action is to improve and widen
the existing 7800 South Right-of-way. Slivers of land will be needed to
accommodate the proposed street widening improvements through this area
(0.903 acres) and is included in the overall land release request.
    The property release conveyance will include appropriate continuing
right of flight and continuing restriction clauses that will prohibit
any activity on the land that would interfere with or be a hazard to
the flight of aircraft over the land or to and from the airport, or
that interferes with air navigation and communications facilities
serving the airport.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect
the application, notice and other documents germane to the application
in person at the Salt Lake City Department of Airports.

    Issued in Denver, CO on March 23, 2018.
John P. Bauer,
Manager, Denver Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2018-06998 Filed 4-4-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 9, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27144-27146]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11197]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0448; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-016-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model A109S helicopters, which would require
modifying the electrical power distribution system to carry a higher
electrical load. This proposed AD is prompted by an electrical failure
on an Agusta Model A109E helicopter that resulted from ``inadequate
functioning of the 35 amperes (amps) BATT BUS circuit breaker.'' The
proposed actions are intended to require modifying the electrical power
distribution system to prevent failure of the circuit breaker, loss of
electrical power to instruments powered by the ``BATT BUS'' system,

and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 9, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Agusta, S.p.A., Via Giovanni Agusta 520, 21017 Cascina Costa di
Samarate (VA), Italy, ATTN: Giovanni Cecchelli; telephone 39-0331-
711133; fax 39-0331-711180; or at http://www.agustawestland.com/technical-bullettins. You may review a copy of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark F. Wiley, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for Italy, a Member State of the European Union, issued EASA AD
No. 2009-0137, dated June 23, 2009, for the Agusta Model A109E
helicopter to correct an unsafe electrical condition caused by an
inadequately functioning circuit breaker that was not within design
requirements. That EASA AD required installing a ``BATT BUS'' circuit
breaker modification kit on the Model A109E helicopters. Based on the
unsafe condition created by this circuit breaker as described in EASA
AD No. 2009-0137, the FAA issued AD 2010-20-21 (75 FR 61341, October 5,
2010; Correction published at 75 FR 65224, October 22, 2010) to require
installing a ``BATT BUS'' circuit breaker modification kit on Model
A109E helicopters in the United States. Subsequently, EASA issued AD
No. 2009-0264, dated December 15, 2009, to correct the same unsafe
condition on the Agusta Model A109S helicopters due to the design
commonality between the electrical power distribution system of the
Model A109E and A109S helicopters. The FAA is now proposing to issue
this AD for the Model A109S helicopters to correct this same unsafe
condition.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative,
has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD.
    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information
provided by EASA and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information

    Agusta has issued Bollettino Tecnico No. 109S-35, dated December
11, 2009 (BT), which specifies modifying and testing the ``BATT BUS''
circuit breaker installation. The EASA classified this BT as mandatory
and issued AD No. 2009-0264, dated December 15, 2009, to ensure the
continued airworthiness of these helicopters.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require compliance with specified portions
of the manufacturer's service bulletin including modifying the
electrical power distribution system by installing a ``BATT BUS''
Circuit Breaker Modification Kit, part number 109-0824-73-107, and
thereafter, testing for proper functioning of the electrical system.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    This proposed AD does not reference the calendar date of June 30,
2010, which has already passed.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 15 helicopters of
U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs
in order to comply with this AD. It would take about 8 work-hours per
helicopter to install the `BATT BUS' circuit breaker modification kit
at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour and required parts would
cost about $471 per helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the
total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $17,265.
    According to the service information of the production approval
holder (PAH), some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered
under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage by the PAH.
Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

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

AGUSTA S.p.A.: Docket No. FAA-2012-0448; 2010-SW-016-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model A109S
helicopters, serial numbers up to and including 22151, certificated
in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of the 35 ampere
(amp) ``BATT BUS,'' which could result in an electrical failure and
fire, loss of electrical power to instruments powered by the ``BATT
BUS'' system, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(d) Required Actions

    Within 50 hours time-in-service, modify the electrical power
distribution system by installing the ``BATT BUS'' Circuit Breaker
Modification Kit, part number 109-0824-73-107, as depicted in
Figures 1 through 3 and by following the Compliance Instructions,
paragraphs 4. through 7., of Agusta Bollettino Tecnico No. 109S-35,
dated December 11, 2009 (ASB). Thereafter, operationally test the
electrical system by following paragraphs 19.1 through 19.7 of the
ASB.

(e) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR
21.197 and 21.199 to operate the helicopter to a location where the
requirements of this AD can be accomplished provided that you do not
simultaneously operate the landing light and the search light.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Mark F. Wiley, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-
5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a Part 119 operating
certificate or under Part 91, Subpart K, we suggest that you notify
your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the
manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate
holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with
this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (Italy) AD No. 2009-0264, dated December 15, 2009.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2460, DC Power/
Distribution System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 17, 2012.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-11197 Filed 5-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 5, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45327-45329]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18260]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0311; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-014-AD;
Amendment 39-17927; AD 2014-16-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Fuji
Heavy Industries, Ltd. Models FA-200-160, FA-200-180, and FA-200-180AO
airplanes. 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 deterioration of brake
performance due to seal defects caused by deterioration due to age of
the O-rings of the brake master cylinder. We are issuing this AD to
require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 9, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of September 9,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0311; 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 proposed AD, contact
Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd., Aerospace Company, 1-11 Younan 1 Chome
Utsunomiya Tochigi, Japan 320-8564; telephone: +81-28-684-7253; fax:
+81-28-684-7260; email: none; Internet: http://www.fhi.co.jp/english/outline/section/aero.html. 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>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, 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 to add an AD that would apply to Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Models FA-200-160, FA-200-180, and FA-200-180AO airplanes. The NPRM was
published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2014 (79 FR 28647). 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 was
issued based on reports of deterioration of brake performance due to
seal defects caused by deterioration due to age of the O-rings of the
brake master cylinder on the affected airplanes, which could result in
reduced or loss of control during ground operations. The MCAI requires
repetitive replacement of any O-ring of the brake master cylinders. The
MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0311-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 28647, May 19,
2014) 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 this 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 (79 FR 28647, May 19, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 28647, May 19, 2014).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 3 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour 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 the AD on U.S.
operators to be $255, or $85 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 8 work-hours and require parts costing $10, for a cost of
$690 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-2014-
0311; 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:

2014-16-03 Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd.: Amendment 39-17927; Docket
No. FAA-2014-0311; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-014-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective September 9,
2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd. Models FA-200-
160, FA-200-180, and FA-200-180AO airplanes, all serial numbers,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing
Gear.

(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 deterioration of
brake performance due to seal defects caused by deterioration due to
age of the O-rings of the brake master cylinders. We are issuing
this AD to prevent the deterioration of brake performance, which
could result in reduced or loss of control during ground operations.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions required by
paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this AD:
    (1) As of September 9, 2014 (the effective date of this AD), if
the brake master cylinder O-rings have accumulated more than 1,000
hours time-in-service (TIS) or 5 years since the last replacement of
any O-ring or if the replacement date of any O-ring cannot be
determined, within 50 hours TIS after September 9, 2014 (the
effective date of this AD) or 1 year after September 9, 2014 (the
effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, replace any O-
ring following Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd. Service Bulletin No. 200-
016, dated April 17, 2014.
    (2) As of September 9, 2014 (the effective date of this AD),
every time the brake master cylinder is replaced, inspect the
manufacture date on the data tag of the brake master cylinder or the
last replacement date of any O-ring by referring to the airframe
logbook.
    (3) During any inspection of the manufacture date of the brake
master cylinder or the last replacement date of any O-ring as
required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, if it is determined that
the O-rings have accumulated more than 5 years since the manufacture
date on the data tag of the brake master cylinder or the last
replacement date of the brake master cylinder O-rings, or if the
manufacture date on the data tag on the brake master cylinder and
the last replacement date of any brake master cylinder O-ring cannot
be determined, before further flight, replace all brake master
cylinder O-rings when installed on the airplane following Fuji Heavy
Industries Ltd. Service Bulletin No. 200-016, dated April 17, 2014.

(g) 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: Doug Rudolph, 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.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB) AD No. TCD-
8396-2014, dated April 21, 2014, for related information. The MCAI
can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0311-0002.

(i) 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) Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd. Service Bulletin No. 200-016,
dated April 17, 2014.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd. service information
identified in this AD, contact Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd.,
Aerospace Company, 1-11 Younan 1 Chome Utsunomiya Tochigi, Japan
320-8564; telephone: +81-28-684-7253; fax: +81-28-684-7260; email:
none; Internet: http://www.fhi.co.jp/english/outline/section/aero.html.
    (4) You may view this 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
(816) 329-4148.
    (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 July 28, 2014.
James E. Jackson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-18260 Filed 8-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


	Address 100 Barr Harbor Drive

PO Box C700

W. Conshohocken, PA

19428-2959 | USA	Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

Web  www.astm.org

Committee E50 on ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, RISK MANAGEMENT AND
CORRECTIVE ACTION

	Chairman: 	Julie H Kilgore, Wasatch Environmental Inc, 2410 West
California Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84104, United States<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
	First Vice Chairman: 	A Gwen Eklund, Trc, Suite 250, Trc 505 East
Huntland Drive, Austin, TX 78752, United States<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
	Second Vice Chairman: 	Dennis D Rounds, SD Office Of Risk Management,
1429 E Sioux Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501, United States<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
	Recording Secretary: 	David W Parsonage, American Geosciences Inc, 3925
Reed Blvd/suite 400, Murrysville, PA 15668, United States (724)
733-7003, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
	Membership Secretary: 	Helen A Waldorf, Dep Bwp And Green Epiphany, 28
Pond St., Jamaica Plain, MA 02130, United States<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
	Staff Manager: 	Daniel G Smith,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

June 17, 2008

Ms. Susan Bodine

Assistant Administrator

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Mail Code 5101T)

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20460

Subject:  Request to add reference to ASTM E2247-08, Standard Practice
for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural Property to All Appropriate
Inquiries Regulation, 40 C.F.R. § 312.11

Dear Ms. Bodine:

ASTM and Committee E50 Background

ASTM International is one of the world’s largest voluntary standards
development organizations.  More than 11,000 ASTM standards, which
address health, safety and the environment, are published annually.  The
standards, and related technical information, are widely used throughout
the world as the basis of purchasing and other contracts, codes and
regulations.

ASTM Committee E50 on Environmental Assessment, Risk Management and
Corrective Action was formed in 1990 to provide a forum in which, among
other things, committee members may discuss issues and develop standard
industry practices for environmental site assessments performed in
connection with commercial real estate transactions.  Committee E50 is a
well-balanced committee with over 1,000 members representing all of the
stakeholder groups such as environmental engineers, consultants and
geologists, insurers, lenders, attorneys, real estate professionals,
environmental activists, and representatives from state and Federal
government.

ASTM’s Request

ASTM International respectfully requests that the EPA add a reference in
section 312.11 of EPA’s All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) regulation to
ASTM Standard Guide E2247-08 as being consistent with the AAI Final
Regulation and compliant with the statutory criteria for all appropriate
inquiries.  E2247 was initially adopted in 2002 and was recently revised
by ASTM Committee E50 on Environmental Assessment, Risk Management and
Corrective Action for the purpose of ensuring its consistency with the
AAI final rule and compliant with the AAI statutory criteria.  During
this revision process, Committee E50 sought and received input and
advice from EPA's Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization and the
Office of General Counsel.  ASTM International and Committee E50 believe
that referencing E2247-08 in the AAI Regulation will provide the needed
guidance to parties purchasing large tracts of land and seeking CERCLA
liability protection as bona fide prospective purchasers or innocent
landowners.  Details supporting ASTM’s request for referencing E2247
follow below.

E2247 Is Consistent with the AAI Final Rule and the AAI Statutory
Standards

The regulations for conducting all appropriate inquiries outline the
standards and practices for conducting the activities included in each
of the statutory criteria established by Congress in the 2002
Brownfields Amendments to CERCLA.  E2247-08 is consistent with all of
the outlined standards and practices and referencing E2247-08 is
consistent with the agency’s intent to allow for the use of applicable
and compliant voluntary consensus standards when possible to facilitate
implementation of the final regulations and avoid disruption to parties
using voluntary consensus standards that are found to be fully compliant
with the federal regulations.

E2247 Represents Industry Consensus

The consensus process for developing ASTM standards is quite rigorous:
a task group formulates a draft standard, which it believes reflects
standard industry practices.  The draft is submitted to the appropriate
subcommittee (in this case, Subcommittee E50.02 on Real Estate
Assessment and Management) for consideration, discussion and voting.
Subcommittee approval requires an affirmative vote of at least two
thirds of the combined affirmative and negative votes cast by voting
members with not less than 60% of the voting members returning ballots.
The main committee (E50) approval requires an affirmative vote of at
least 90% of the combined affirmative and negative votes cast by voting
members with not less than 60% of the voting members returning ballots.
All standards being balloted at the main committee level are
simultaneously included in the ASTM Society Review (there are no
numerical requirements at the Society level).  In addition to the
numerical requirements above, all negatives and comments received during
the process must be handled successfully.  The Committee on Standards
(COS), a standing committee that reports directly to the ASTM Board of
Directors, must review the handling of negative votes that have been
determined “not persuasive” by the subcommittee and main committee
(to ensure that the procedures have been followed) prior to approval of
the standard by ASTM.  ASTM also has a proven process for maintaining
standards over time.  Standards are revised as needed by the appropriate
technical subcommittee but at a minimum reviewed for revision,
reapproval or withdrawal every four years.

In summary, E50 is a well-balanced Committee, develops standards
according to a defined set of consensus principles and takes prompt
action to update their standards to reflect current industry and
government practices.

Meets the Marketplace Need

E2247 was originally developed to meet the unique environmental
assessment needs of parties involved in the acquisition of large acreage
forestland and rural property.  Forest industry, other natural resource
industries, conservation organizations, forest and rural real estate
professionals, lenders, resource management agencies, and environmental
consultants are examples of the wide variety of parties that apply the
E2247 standard practice.  However, the final AAI rules do not reference
E2247 and hence CERCLA landowner liability protections are not available
to users of the E2247 standard.  Given the marketplace acceptance of the
E2247 standard, there would be significant public benefit and minimal
market disruption from EPA determining that the revised E2247-08
standard complies with the AAI requirements and therefore referencing
the standard in section 312.11 of the AAI rules.

Public Law 104-113, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Public Law 104-113, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
directs federal agencies and departments to use technical standards that
are developed by voluntary consensus standards bodies to carry out
policy objectives and further directs Federal agencies and departments
to participate with consensus standards bodies in the development of
technical standards when such participation is in the public interest
and is compatible with agency and departmental missions, authorities,
priorities and budget resources.  ASTM believes that referencing E2247
in AAI is clearly in the public interest and is compatible with agency
and departmental missions, authorities, priorities and budget resources.

ASTM and EPA have worked cooperatively and successfully for many years
as the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40 currently references
nearly 1000 ASTM standards.  Most recently, ASTM and the EPA worked
cooperatively to have E1527-05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Assessments
referenced in the AAI rule (§ 312.11; see 70 Fed. Reg. 66070, 66081
(Nov. 1, 2005)).  The same cooperative working relationship between ASTM
and EPA produced the current revisions to E2247.

If you have any questions about Committee E50, the ASTM, or the E2247-08
Standard and its conformity with EPA’s AAI regulations, please contact
Mr. Dan Smith at<PHONE_NUMBER> or   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

Sincerely,

Julie Kilgore

E50 Committee Chairman

Attachment: ASTM E2247-08 Standard

cc:  James Thomas, ASTM President

      Norman Eke, E50.02 Subcommittee Chairman

      David Parsonage, E2247 Task Group Chairman

      Dan Smith, E50 Staff Manager

      David R. Lloyd, U.S. EPA

      Patricia Overmeyer, U.S. EPA