1 Ecological Effects Data Requirements May 4, 2005 Holiday Inn Rosslyn 1900 N. Fort Myer Drive Arlington, VA 22209 2 Purpose of this presentation  Provide an overview of changes to existing ecological effects data requirements

Revised data requirements o Studies with organisms not previously required in pesticide registration

Newly codified studies o Studies that have been required on a case by case basis that merit inclusion in the data requirements

Change of use sites or conditions for existing studies o Modifications to requirements of existing studies for specified use sites or chemical property conditions 3 Revised Data Requirements Avian Acute Oral Toxicity Testing with a Passerine ( songbird) Species

Uses:

Establish acute toxicity levels of chemical for risk assessment purposes

Support for precautionary label statements

Evaluate the need for further testing

Change

Added one additional test with a passerine species

Rationale for Changes

Address interspecies range of sensitivity ( SAP 1996)

Address concerns for potential greater sensitivity of passerines

When Required

Outdoor pesticide uses 4 Newly Codified Studies Whole Sediment Acute Testing with Benthic Invertebrates

Uses:

Establish acute toxicity levels of chemical for risk assessment purposes

Evaluate the need for further testing

Change

Codifies an already conditional testing requirement

Rationale for Changes

Case specific need to assess the bioavailability of sediment bound compounds and characterize the possible impact to sedimentdwelling organisms

Test is consistent with other EPA sediment effects assessments

When required

K d> 50 mg/ L, Sediment T 1/ 2< 10 days 5 Newly Codified Studies Whole Sediment Chronic Testing with Benthic Invertebrates

Uses:

Establish chronic toxicity levels of chemical for risk assessment purposes

Evaluate the need for further testing

Change

Codifies an already conditional testing requirement

Rationale for Changes

Case specific need to assess the bioavailability of sediment bound compounds and characterize the possible impact to sedimentdwelling organisms

Test is consistent with USEPA Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy

When required

K d> 50 mg/ L, Sediment T 1/ 2> 10 days 6 Change of Use Sites or Conditions Avian Acute Oral Toxicity Testing

Uses:

Establish acute toxicity levels of chemical for risk assessment purposes

Support for precautionary label statements

Evaluate the need for further testing

Change

Conditionally require the testing of typical end use products

Clarification of existing conditional statements, divide structurally complex statement into 4 notes

Rationale for Changes

End use products may contain substances that could enhance the toxicity or availability of the active ingredient

Enhance the reader's understanding of conditional statements 7 Change of Use Sites or Conditions Avian Sub acute Dietary Toxicity Testing

Uses:

Establish acute toxicity levels of chemical to nontarget wildlife for risk assessment purposes

Provide support for precautionary label statements to minimize adverse effects to avian wildlife

Evaluate the need for further testing

Changes

Required ( without condition) for terrestrial, aquatic, forestry, and residential outdoor uses

No longer required for indoor and greenhouse uses

Conditionally require the testing of typical end use products

Rationale for Changes

Dietary exposure is a potentially significant route for outdoor uses

Avian acute oral toxicity represents the most likely route of exposure under indoor uses

Address potential greater toxicity of end use products 8 Change of Use Sites or Conditions Avian Sub acute Dietary Toxicity Testing

Uses:

Establish acute toxicity levels of chemical to nontarget wildlife for risk assessment purposes

Provide support for precautionary label statements to minimize adverse effects to avian wildlife

Evaluate the need for further testing

Changes

Conditionally require for outdoor residential uses when LD 50< 100

Conditionally require second species for nonfood outdoor residential uses if LC 50 is < 500

Rationale for Changes

Ensure an adequate representation of potential avian sensitivity assessing low pesticide use scenarios and establishing label precautions 9 Change of Use Sites or Conditions Wild Mammal Acute Toxicity Testing

Uses:

Establish acute toxicity levels of chemical to nontarget wildlife for risk assessment purposes

Provide support for precautionary label statements to minimize adverse effects to avian wildlife

Evaluate the need for further testing

Changes

Eliminate conditional requirement for aquatic non food residential pesticide uses

Rationale for Changes

Allows for a clearer rationale for situations where earlier tier toxicity testing identifies a need for wild mammal testing, namely the aquatic food and nonfood uses 10 Change of Use Sites or Conditions Avian reproduction toxicity testing

Uses:

Establish toxicity levels of chemical to nontarget wildlife for risk assessment purposes

Provide support for precautionary label statements to minimize adverse effects to avian wildlife

Changes

Eliminate conditional requirement based on chemical stability,

repeat exposure, bioaccumulation

EPA proposes to require these studies for terrestrial ( food crop,

feed crop, and nonfood), aquatic food crop and nonfood outdoor,

forestry, and residential outdoor uses.

Rationale for Changes

Accounts for recognized potential for short and long term exposure to produce reproduction effects.

Represents the current practice of routine conduct of the study 11 Change of Use Sites or Conditions Simulated or Actual Field Testing Birds and Mammals

Uses:

Evaluate risk assessment predictions under field use conditions

Changes

Expand conditional requirement to require these studies for all outdoor uses.

Require independent laboratory validation of environmental chemistry methods

Rationale for Changes

Initial risk assessment screening for some pesticides in non agricultural uses has shown that exposures can be high enough to trigger concerns risk assessment that may warrant further fieldlevel analysis

Method validation prior to field study helps ensure that analytical method performance will not invalidate field studies 12 Change of Use Sites or Conditions Acute Toxicity Testing with Freshwater Fish

Uses:

Establish toxicity levels of chemical to aquatic vertebrates for risk assessment purposes

Provide support for precautionary label statements to minimize adverse effects to aquatic life

Changes

Expand conditional requirement to require two fish species for greenhouse and indoor uses for compounds found to be stable to hydrolysis and of moderate toxicity LC 50> 1ppm but < 10 ppm

Rationale for Changes

Fish toxicity data indicate that species sensitivity can vary by an order of magnitude or greater

Additional test will allow for precautionary labeling or effluent criteria that more accurately reflect the toxicity of compound in case of accidental release to the environment 13 Change of Use Sites or Conditions Acute Toxicity Testing with Estuarine and Marine Organisms

Uses:

Establish toxicity levels of chemical to estuarine/ marine organisms for risk assessment purposes

Provide support for precautionary label statements to minimize adverse effects to aquatic life

Changes

Drop conditions from the requirement for acute testing of these organisms for outdoor uses ( generally 3 of 5 organisms to be tested)

Eliminate the need to test for residential nonfood aquatic uses

Rationale for Changes

Aquatic organism toxicity data indicate that species sensitivity can vary by an order of magnitude or greater Compounds may have modes of action specific to certain taxonomic groups

Residential non food aquatic uses are likely to involve insufficient pesticide to pose a significant exposure 14 Change of Use Sites or Conditions Chronic Toxicity Testing with Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates

Uses:

Establish chronic toxicity levels to aquatic organisms for risk assessment purposes

Provide support for precautionary label statements to minimize adverse effects to aquatic life

Changes

Separate fish and invertebrate requirements and identify freshwater and estuarine/ marine requirements separately

Unconditionally require freshwater fish and invertebrate chronic testing requirements for outdoor uses

Eliminate the need to test for residential nonfood aquatic uses

Rationale for Changes

Exposure to both fish and aquatic invertebrates can be expected to occur as a result of pesticide release to aquatic systems

Acute effects testing is not a reliable indicator of chronic sensitivity across taxonomic groups

Aquatic nonfood residential is a small use site 15 Change of Use Sites or Conditions Aquatic Organism Bioavailability/ Biomagnification

Uses:

Establish establish to potential for bioaccumulation of a compound in aquatic organisms for risk assessment purposes

Changes

Eliminate the need to test for nonfood residential and residential outdoor uses

Rationale for Changes

Exposure to both fish and aquatic invertebrates can be expected to be minimal with insufficient quantities released to accumulate in aquatic organism tissues. 16 Change of Use Sites or Conditions Simulated or Actual Field Testing for Aquatic Organisms

Uses:

Evaluate risk assessment predictions under field use conditions

Changes

Clarify that conditional requirement applies to turf ( commercial, golf courses, etc.)

Eliminate the need to test for nonfood residential uses

Rationale for Changes

Exposure to both fish and aquatic invertebrates can be expected to be minimal for nonfood residential uses. 17 Change of Use Sites or Conditions Honeybee Acute Contact Toxicity

Uses:

Establish toxicity levels of chemical to honeybees for risk assessment purposes

Provide support for precautionary label statements to minimize adverse effects to honeybees

Changes

Drop the condition of pesticide use overlap with crop blooming

Require study for terrestrial food, feed, nonfood, aquatic food and nonfood ( outdoor), forestry, and residential outdoor uses.

Waiver for use practices that significantly reduce bee exposure

Rationale for Changes

Need to address those situations where blooming, pollen shedding,

and nectar producing parts of nontarget plants in or near to application site could attract bees. 18 Change of Use Sites or Conditions Honeybee Toxicity of Residues on Foliage

Uses:

Establish toxicity levels of chemical to honeybees for risk assessment purposes

Provide support for precautionary label statements to minimize adverse effects to honeybees

Changes

Require testing of technical end use product when the formulation has one or more ingredients with bee LD 50< 11 ug/ bee and use pattern is one where bees could be exposed

Rationale for Changes

Correct rule to reflect the 1982 proposed data requirement toxicity LD 50 threshold of 11 ug/ bee 19 Change of Use Sites or Conditions Seed Germination Study  Uses:

Risk assessment for adverse effects on non target plants  Changes

Eliminate the requirement for this study  Rationale for Changes

Endpoints for this study can be measured in seedling emergence study 20 Change of Use Sites or Conditions Seedling Emergence and Vegetative Vigor

Uses:

Risk assessment for adverse effectsto non target plants

Changes

Expand requirement for terrestrial food and feed crops, aquatic food crops, and residential outdoor uses

No vegetative vigor studies required for granular or bait products

Test technical end use product in place of active ingredient

Rationale for Changes

The expanded use sites represent pesticide application scenarios where drift and runoff may occur

Granular or bait product testing is not practical for vegetative vigor studies where pesticide is applied to plant surface

End use products can contain ingredients that enhance the bioavailability or toxicity of active ingredient

Testing of end use products eliminates need for solvent controls as product already contains solvent 21 Change of Use Sites or Conditions Terrestrial Field and Aquatic Field Plant Studies

Uses:

Evaluate risk assessment predictions under field use conditions

Changes

Expand requirement terrestrial food and feed crops, aquatic food crops, and residential outdoor uses

Add Tier II studies as conditionally required for aquatic nonfood residential uses

Require independent laboratory validation of environmental chemistry methods

Rationale for Changes

The expanded use sites represent pesticide application scenarios where drift and runoff to adjacent areas may occur

Method validation prior to field study helps ensure that analytical method performance will not invalidate field studies


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 159 (Monday, August 18, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48703-48706]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19552]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0570; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-094-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301,
-311, and -315 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by fuel system
reviews conducted by the manufacturer. This proposed AD would require
revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new
limitations for fuel tank systems. We are proposing this AD to prevent
potential ignition sources within the fuel system, which could result
in a fuel tank explosion.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 2, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard,
Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 416-375-
4539; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at
the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-
0570; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Morton Lee, Propulsion Engineer,
Propulsion & Services Branch, ANE-173; FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0570;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-094-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a
regulation titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review,
Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements''
(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards
for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule
included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88,''
Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e.,
type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders
to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design
holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for
subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to
perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance
procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety
standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to
adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary
to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of
operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable
conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address
the failure types under evaluation: single failures, combination of
failures, and unacceptable (failure) experience. For all three failure
criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions
taken that may mitigate the need for further action.
    We have determined that the actions identified in this proposed AD
are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel
tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result
in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2007-32R2, dated June 27, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, -
106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
aeroplanes fuel system against fuel tank safety standards * * *. The
identified non-compliances were then assessed * * *, to determine if
mandatory corrective action is required.
    The assessment showed that supplemental maintenance tasks are
required to prevent potential ignition sources within the fuel
system, which could result in a fuel tank explosion. Revisions have
been made to Part 2 ``Airworthiness Limitations List'' of the DHC-8
Maintenance Program Manuals to introduce the required maintenance
tasks.
    Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD was issued to clarify the
phase-in schedule for tasks FSL-02 and FSL-17.
    Revision 2 of this [Canadian] AD is issued to correct the
effective date of AD CF-2013-07 [http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:OLDASSET::svPath=/ADFiles/over/dhc-8/,svFileName=CF-2013-07.pdf] referenced in Part III of the Corrective Actions and to
clarify the revised phase-in schedules in Part II and Part III of
the Corrective Actions.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0570.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued the following service information. The
actions described in this service information are intended to correct
the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
     Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL-110, dated August 31,
2007, to Part 2, ``Airworthiness Limitations,'' of Bombardier Dash 8
Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual (MPM), Product Support Manual
(PSM) 1-8-7.
     Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 2-43, dated August 31,
2007, to Part 2, ``Airworthiness Limitations,'' of Bombardier Dash 8
Series 200 MPM, PSM 1-82-7.
     Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 3-109, dated August 31,
2007, to Part 2, ``Airworthiness Limitations,'' of Bombardier Dash 8
Series 300 MPM, PSM 1-83-7.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections) and/or
Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs). Compliance
with these actions and/or CDCCLs is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in
the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(j)(1) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of
changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued
operational safety of the airplane.

``Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in This Proposed AD

    Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD.
    The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often
directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective
actions,

such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph allowed
owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the manufacturer
if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the paragraph stated
that any actions approved by the State of Design Authority (or its
delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
    In an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR
78285, December 26, 2013), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs
that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition,
by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design
Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to the FAA AD. This
change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide
operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically
developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we
proposed to change the phrase ``its delegated agent'' to include a
design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design
organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH
authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD.
    One commenter to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) stated the following: ``The
proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the
interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor
deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD
mandated Airbus service bulletin.''
    This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to
allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer
as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated
action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or
other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-
required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request
the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required
actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled
it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now clarifies that
for any requirement in this proposed AD to obtain corrective actions
from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method
approved by the FAA, or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature. The DAO signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are TCCA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DAO-authorized signature approval are not TCCA-
approved, unless TCCA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 122 airplanes 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 proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $10,370, or $85
per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2014-0570; Directorate Identifier
2013-NM-094-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 2, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2008-13-09, Amendment 39-15572 (73 FR 47029,
August 13, 2008).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106,
-201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes, certificated in any
category, serial numbers (S/N) 003 through 624 inclusive, and 626.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent potential ignition
sources within the fuel system, which could result in a fuel tank
explosion.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include fuel
system limitation (FSL) Task Numbers FSL-02 and FSL-17, as specified
in the applicable temporary revision (TR) identified in paragraph
(g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD. The initial compliance times
for accomplishing the tasks are specified in paragraphs (h)(1),
(h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD. Doing this revision terminates the
requirements of paragraph (f) of AD 2008-13-09, Amendment 39-15572
(73 FR 47029, August 13, 2008), for Task Numbers FSL-02 and FSL-17
only.
    (1) Bombardier TR AWL-110, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2,
``Airworthiness Limitations,'' of Bombardier Dash 8 Series 100
Maintenance Program Manual (MPM), Product Support Manual (PSM) 1-8-
7.
    (2) Bombardier TR AWL 2-43, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2,
``Airworthiness Limitations,'' of Bombardier Dash 8 Series 200 MPM,
PSM 1-82-7.
    (3) Bombardier TR AWL 3-109, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2,
``Airworthiness Limitations,'' of Bombardier Dash 8 Series 300 MPM,
PSM 1-83-7.

(h) Phase-in Compliance Times

    For airplanes having S/Ns 003 through 624, and S/N 626, the
initial compliance times are specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2),
and (h)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) For airplanes having S/Ns 003 through 624 on which the
applicable modification summaries (ModSums) specified in paragraphs
(h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii), and (h)(1)(iii) of this AD have been
incorporated before the effective date of this AD: The compliance
time for the initial inspection in FSL Task Number FSL-02 and the
initial functional check in FSL Task Number FSL-17 is within 6,000
flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first. Airplane configurations can be a combination
of the configurations specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii),
and (h)(1)(iii) of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes having S/Ns 003 through 624: Bombardier ModSum
Package 8Q101512, Revision G, dated June 10, 2009; and Bombardier
ModSum Package 8Q101865, Revision B, dated May 26, 2008.
    (ii) For airplanes having S/Ns 003 through 624 with auxiliary
power unit (APU) option: Bombardier ModSum Package 8Q902144,
Revision E, dated June 17, 2009.
    (iii) For airplanes having S/Ns 003 through 624 with a long-
range fuel system installed: Bombardier ModSum Package 8Q902091,
Revision C, dated December 22, 2006.
    (2) For airplanes having S/Ns 003 through 624 on which the
applicable ModSum packages specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i),
(h)(1)(ii), and (h)(1)(iii) of this AD have not been incorporated
before the effective date of this AD: The compliance time for the
initial inspection in FSL Task Number FSL-02 and the initial
functional check in FSL Task Number FSL-17 is before further flight
after incorporation of all applicable ModSum packages specified in
paragraphs (h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii), and (h)(1)(iii) of this AD.
Airplane configurations can be a combination of the configurations
specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii), and (h)(1)(iii) of
this AD.
    (3) For the airplane having serial number 626: The initial
compliance time is at the applicable time specified in paragraph
(h)(3)(i) or (h)(3)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) If Bombardier ModSum Package 8Q902091, Revision C, dated
December 22, 2006, has been incorporated before the effective date
of this AD: The compliance time for doing the initial inspection
specified in FSL Task Number FSL-02 and the initial functional check
specified in FSL Task Number FSL-17 is within 6,000 flight hours or
within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs first.
    (ii) If Bombardier ModSum Package 8Q902091 Revision C, dated
December 22, 2006, has not been incorporated before the effective
date of this AD: The compliance time for doing the initial
inspection in FSL Task Number FSL-02 and the initial functional
check in FSL Task Number FSL-17 is before further flight after
incorporation of Bombardier ModSum Package 8Q901091.

(i) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and/or Critical Design
Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, and/
or CDCCLs may be used unless the actions, intervals, and/or CDCCLs
are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this
AD.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or Transport
Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design
Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval
must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-32R2, dated June 27,
2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0570.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at
the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 7, 2014.
Victor Wicklund,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-19552 Filed 8-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71770-71772]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27889]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0912; Product Identifier 2019-NE-33-AD; Amendment
39-21011; AD 2019-25-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Engine Alliance Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Engine Alliance (EA) GP7270 and GP7277 model turbofan engines with a
certain low-pressure compressor (LPC) 1st-stage fan blade installed.
This AD requires an ultrasonic inspection of the affected LPC 1st-stage
fan blades and replacement of any affected fan blades that fail the
inspection. This AD was prompted by a report of an in-flight shutdown
(IFSD) of an engine due to the fracture of multiple fan blades. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 14, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 14,
2020.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by February 13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Engine Alliance, 411 Silver Lane, East Hartford, CT, 06118; phone: 800-
565-0140; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website:
www.engineallianceportal.com. You may view this service information at
the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2019-0912.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0912; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Operations is
listed above. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Smith, Aerospace Engineer, ECO
Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-
238-7735; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA received a report of an IFSD that occurred during a revenue
flight on March 10, 2019. The IFSD resulted from the fracture of two
LPC 1st-stage fan blades. After an analysis of these fractures, the
manufacturer determined the fan blades experienced cracks that
originated on the internal surface of the convex airfoil and propagated
to the point of failure. The cracks originated in a microtexture area
that can result in a low-cycle fatigue debit that may allow a crack to
initiate and propagate to failure. This condition, if not addressed,
could result in uncontained fan blade release, damage to the engine,
and damage to the airplane. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed EA Service Bulletin (SB) EAGP7-A72-426, dated
September 30, 2019. The SB describes procedures for performing an
ultrasonic inspection of the LPC 1st-stage fan blades. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this AD because the FAA evaluated all the
relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same
type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires an ultrasonic inspection of the affected LPC 1st-
stage fan blades and replacement of any affected fan blades that fail
the inspection.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD interim action. The root cause of the LPC
1st-stage fan blade fracture is still undetermined and the FAA will
consider further rulemaking depending on the results of the
investigation.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product,
notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are
unnecessary. In addition, for the reason stated above, the FAA finds
that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than
30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public
comment. However, the FAA invites you to send any written data, views,
or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2019-
0912 and Product Identifier 2019-NE-33-AD at the

beginning of your comments. The FAA specifically invites comments on
the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of
this final rule. The FAA will consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this final rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not
apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt
a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined
that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment,
RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 0 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perform ultrasonic inspection for one   8 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $680              $0
 set of blades.                          hour = $680.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace fan blade.............................  4 work-hours x $85 per hour =           $190,000        $190,340
                                                 $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2019-25-13 Engine Alliance: Amendment 39-21011; Docket No. FAA-2019-
0912; Product Identifier 2019-NE-33-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective January 14, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Engine Alliance (EA) GP7270 and GP7277 model
turbofan engines with low-pressure compressor (LPC) 1st-stage fan
blades, part number (P/N) 5700531, 5702931, 5702931CL1, or
5702931CL2, installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine
Compressor Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of an in-flight shutdown of an
engine due to the fracture of multiple LPC 1st-stage fan blades. The
FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the fan blade. The
unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in uncontained fan
blade release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) For engines with affected LPC 1st-stage fan blades that have
3,250 or more flight cycles (FCs) since new as of the effective date
of this AD, within 250 FCs after the effective date of this AD,
perform an ultrasonic inspection of the LPC 1st-stage fan blades in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, ``For Fan Blades
Installed In An Engine,'' paragraph 1, or ``For Fan Blades Not
Installed In an Engine,'' paragraph 1, as applicable, of EA Service
Bulletin (SB) EAGP7-A72-426, dated September 30, 2019.
    (2) If the ultrasonic inspection of the affected fan blades
results in a rejectable ultrasonic indication, remove the fan blade
from service and replace with a part eligible for installation
before further flight.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g)(2): Guidance on determining a rejectable
ultrasonic indication can be found in Non-Destructive Inspection
Procedure, NDIP-1205, Revision 1--GP7000 1st Stage LPC Rotor (Fan)
Blade Assembly Airfoil Ultrasonic Inspection for Cracks (Fan Blades
installed or uninstalled), (``NDIP-1205''), dated September 23,
2019.

(h) No Reporting Requirement

    No reporting requirement contained within NDIP-1205 is required
by this AD.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for the ultrasonic inspection required by
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD if you performed the inspection before
the effective date of this AD using NDIP-1205, Revision 1, dated
September 23, 2019, or Original Issue, dated August 30, 2019.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. You may email your request
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Matthew Smith,
Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Engine Alliance (EA) Service Bulletin EAGP7-A72-426, dated
September 30, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EA service information identified in this AD, contact
Engine Alliance, 411 Silver Lane, East Hartford, CT 06118; phone:
800-565-0140; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website:
www.engineallianceportal.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine and
Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA
01803. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on December 12, 2019.
Robert J. Ganley,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-27889 Filed 12-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 108)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32448-32450]
[DOCID:fr06jn06-6]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2005-MI-0001; FRL-8176-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Michigan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a June 17, 2005, Michigan petition for
exemptions from the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and
New Source Review (NSR) requirements for major sources of nitrogen
oxides (NOX). The petition is for sources in six of
Michigan's eight-hour ozone nonattainment areas, which comprise eleven
counties. EPA proposed approval of the petition in a January 5, 2006
rulemaking action. Section 182(f) of the Clean Air Act allows this
exemption for areas where additional reductions in NOX will
not contribute to attainment of the ozone standard. The Grand Rapids,
Kalamazoo/Battle Creek, Lansing/East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron
County, and Mason County nonattainment areas will each receive an
exemption.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 6, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2005-0001. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (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 through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at

the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation
Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This
facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Matt Rau,
Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Supporting Materials?
II. What Are the Environmental Effects of These Actions?
III. What Is EPA's Response to Comments?
IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Supporting Materials?

    Michigan submitted the 2002-04 monitoring data for the six ozone
nonattainment areas. The eight-hour ozone concentrations for these
areas were all below the National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS)for ozone. EPA records indicate the 2003-05 monitoring data is
also below the eight-hour ozone NAAQS for all six areas. Michigan has
not implemented NOX control provisions in the areas.
    EPA's January 14, 2005 document, ``Guidance on Limiting Nitrogen
Oxides Requirements Related to 8-Hour Ozone Implementation'' gives the
requirements for demonstrating that further NOX reduction in
an ozone nonattainment area will not contribute to ozone attainment.
The guidance provides that three consecutive years of monitoring data
below the standard in areas that have not implemented NOX
controls adequately demonstrates that additional NOX
reductions will not aid attainment. EPA's approval of the petition is
granted on a contingent basis. Michigan must continue to monitor the
ozone levels in the areas. Each of the six areas receives its own
exemption. If an area violates the standard, EPA will remove the
exemption for that area.

II. What Are the Environmental Effects of These Actions?

    Nitrogen oxides are a precursor in ozone formation. Volatile
organic compounds (VOC) are another ozone precursor. The photochemical
reactions that form ozone are complex. Reducing NOX (NO and
NO2) emissions will not always reduce ozone levels. When the
ratio of NO to VOC emissions is high, the NO will react with ozone
(O3) to form NO2 and oxygen (O2). In
this environment, the NO2 will react with hydroxyl (OH)
radicals instead of forming ozone. A decrease in NOX
emissions would cause an increase in ozone formation when these
conditions exist. This effect is usually localized.
    Because of this chemical reaction, the section 182(f) exemptions
should not interfere with attainment of the standard NAAQS for ozone in
the six Michigan ozone nonattainment areas. The state demonstrated that
the areas were able to hold ozone levels under the NAAQS without
employing NOX controls. Thus, additional NOX
controls would not be expected to contribute to attainment. Ozone
levels are expected to remain below the standard which will protect
human health. If a violation occurs in one of the areas, EPA will
remove the exemption for that area and will require additional control
measures.

III. What Is EPA's Response to Comments?

    EPA received one comment on the January 5, 2006 (71 FR 577-579),
proposed approval of Michigan's petition. That comment came from the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (New York). New
York was concerned that EPA did not evaluate the impact of the
NOX waivers on its ozone nonattainment areas. It cited the
results of ozone contribution modeling from another EPA program, the
Clean Air Interstate Rule. The contribution modeling shows a link
between state-wide Michigan NOX and VOC emissions and
nineteen counties, including the New York ozone nonattainment counties
of Erie, Richmond, and Suffolk.
    In considering this petition, EPA did not evaluate the impact of
the NOX waivers on downwind ozone nonattainment areas. This
is not a part of the process for evaluating section 182(f) waiver
requests. The NOX emission reductions required from Michigan
under other EPA programs are not affected by granting of the waivers.
Also, reductions of other ozone precursors, such as VOC, are unaffected
by this action. If called for under other programs, Michigan will be
required to reduce its state-wide emissions to address its contribution
to nonattainment counties in other states. The Clean Air Interstate
Rule will address the specific concern New York expressed by requiring
ozone precursor reductions in Michigan and other states

that contribute to the New York ozone nonattainment areas.

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    EPA is approving a Michigan petition for exemptions from the RACT
and NSR requirements for major NOX sources in six of the
state's eight-hour ozone nonattainment areas. These nonattainment areas
encompass eleven counties. The Grand Rapids area includes Kent and
Ottawa counties. Calhoun, Kalamazoo, and Van Buren counties make up the
Kalamazoo/Battle Creek area. The Lansing/East Lansing area consists of
Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham counties. Benzie, Huron, and Mason counties
are all single county nonattainment areas.
    Section 182(f) of the Clean Air Act allows this exemption for areas
where a state demonstrates that additional reductions in NOX
will not contribute to attainment of the NAAQS for ozone. Monitoring
data shows the ozone levels in the six areas are now below the NAAQS
without utilizing NOX controls. These exemptions from the
NOX requirements in section 182(f) are on a contingent
basis. The state used monitoring data to demonstrate that it meets the
requirements for the exemption. If an area's monitored level of ozone
violates the NAAQS in the future, EPA will remove its exemption.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, 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 by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a
federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et 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 the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 7, 2006. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone.

    Dated: May 18, 2006.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart X--Michigan

0
2. Section 52.1174 is amended as follows:
0
A. The first paragraph designated as paragraph (c) is redesignated as
paragraph (c)(1).
0
B. The second paragraph designated as paragraph (c) is redesignated as
paragraph (c)(2).
0
C. Paragraph (w) is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1174  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (w) Approval--On June 17, 2005, the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality submitted a petition requesting the exemption
from Clean Air Act oxides of nitrogen control requirements in six 8-
hour ozone nonattainment areas. The Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo/Battle
Creek, Lansing/East Lansing, Benzie County, Huron County, and Mason
County nonattainment areas each receive an exemption. Section 182(f) of
the 1990 amended Clean Air Act authorizes the exceptions. The exemption
will no longer apply in an area if it experiences a violation of the 8-
hour ozone standard.

[FR Doc. 06-4986 Filed 6-5-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 80)]
[Notices]
[Page 24670]
[DOCID:fr26ap06-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EC06-106-000, et al.]

Southeast Chicago Energy Project, LLC. et al.; Electric Rate and
Corporate Filings

April 19, 2006.
    The following filings have been made with the Commission. The
filings are listed in ascending order within each docket
classification.

1. Southeast Chicago Energy Project, LLC; Exelon Generation Company,
LLC; Peoples Calumet, LLC

[Docket No. EC06-106-000]

    Take notice on April 6, 2006, Southeast Chicago Energy Project,
LLC, Exelon Generation Company, LLC and Peoples Calumet, LLC filed an
application, pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act, for
authorization to transfer membership interests in a public utility.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on April 28, 2006.

2. Orange Power Holdings LP, Mulberry Power Holdings LP, O&M Star
Generation LLC

[Docket No. EC06-107-000]

    Take notice on April 12, 2006, Orange Power Holdings LP, Mulberry
Power Holdings LP and O&M Star Generation LLC filed an application,
pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act, for order authorizing
transfer of control of jurisdictional facilities.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on May 3, 2006.

3. Kansas Gas and Electric Company, Elk River Windfarm, LLC

[Docket No. EC06-108-000]

    Take notice on April 11, 2006, Kansas Gas and Electric Company and
Elk River Windfarm, LLC filed a joint application, pursuant to section
203 of the Federal Power Act, for authorization for the disposition of
jurisdictional facilities.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on May 2, 2006.

4. CES Energy, Inc.; J-POWER Frontier GP, LLC; J-POWER Frontier, L.P.;
J-POWER USA Investment Co., Ltd.; Tenaska Energy, Inc.; Tenaska Energy
Holding, LLC; Tenaska Frontier Partners, Ltd.

[Docket No. EC06-109-000]

    Take notice on April 6, 2006, CES Energy, Inc., J-POWER Frontier
GP, LLC, J-POWER Frontier, L.P., J-POWER USA Investment Co., Ltd.,
Tenaska Energy, Inc. Tenaska Energy Holding, LLC, and Tenaska Frontier
Partners, Ltd. filed a joint application, pursuant to the section 203
of the Federal Power Act, for authorization to transfer jurisdictional
facilities.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on April 28, 2006.

5. Spindle Hill Energy LLC

[Docket No. EG06-45-000]

    Take notice that on April 7, 2006, Spindle Hill Energy LLC
submitted a notice of self-certification of exempt wholesale generator
status pursuant to sections 366.1 and 366.7 of the Commission's
regulations.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on April 28, 2006.

Standard Paragraph

    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. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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 14 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 review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6240 Filed 4-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 26 (Friday, February 7, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7401-7404]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02694]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0736; FRL-9905-44]

D-mannose; 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 D-mannose (CAS Reg. No. 3458-28-4) when
used as an inert ingredient (sequestrant, binder, or filler) in
pesticide formulations applied pre-harvest to growing crops. ISK
Biosciences Corporation submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation
eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for
residues of D-mannose.

DATES: This regulation is effective February 7, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 8, 2014, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0736, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is
(703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Rossi, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0736 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
April 8, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0736 by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of October 5, 2011 (76 FR 61647) (FRL-8890-
5), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 1E7903) by ISK
Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Road, Suite A, Concord, OH 44077.
The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.920 be amended by establishing
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of D-
mannose (CAS Reg. No. 3458-28-4) when used as an inert ingredient
(sequestrant, binder or filler) in pesticide formulations applied
preharvest to growing crops. That document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by ISK Biosciences Corporation, the petitioner, which
is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the notice of filing.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

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

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue. . . .''
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human
health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to
pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the
inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert
ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures
that

occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is
able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for D-mannose including exposure
resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with D-mannose follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. EPA's conclusions about the toxicity and effects of D-mannose
are presented in this unit.
    D-mannose is a naturally occurring simple sugar (molecular formula
C6H12O6) and is a normal constituent
of the human diet. It is found as the free sugar in peaches, apples,
and oranges. D-mannose occurs in the tissues of the heart, spleen,
lung, kidney, brain, muscle, liver, and intestine of humans and other
mammalian species as well as being present in circulating blood of
humans at concentrations of around 1 mg/dl.
    Moreover, D-mannose is an important component of various human
metabolic processes. When present in the human body, D-mannose is
involved in an extensive series of metabolic transformations being
ultimately incorporated into glycoproteins and glycolipids or formed
into the sugar fucose which is then incorporated in glycoproteins. The
resultant glycoproteins and glycolipids are essential to the
maintenance of cellular integrity and to cell generation.
    D-mannose is a six carbon simple sugar (hexose) that is an epimer
of D-glucose, having the same chemical structure but differing only in
the three dimensional orientation of one hydroxyl group. All hexoses,
including D-glucose and D-mannose, play significant roles in human
metabolism, including cellular respiration and energy production. Based
on the essentiality of these substances and the efficient modes of
metabolism, there are no concerns for toxicity at normal dietary
levels.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    D-mannose is a naturally occurring simple sugar and is a normal
constituent of the human body. No toxicological endpoint of concern has
been identified.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to D-mannose, EPA considered likely exposure from the use of
D-mannose as an inert ingredient in pesticides applied to growing
crops. Since no toxicological endpoint of concern has been identified
and since the metabolic processes involving D-mannose are well
understood, the Agency has determined that a quantitative dietary
exposure assessment is not necessary. While dietary exposure may result
from the use of D-mannose as an inert ingredient in pesticide
formulations applied to growing crops, the amount of D-mannose
contained in pesticide formulations and applied to growing crops would
be at levels far below its natural occurance in foods and endogenous
production in the human body.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. Dietary exposure from
drinking water to D-mannose can occur by drinking water that has been
contaminated by run-off from a pesticide treated area. Since an
endpoint for risk assessment was not identified, a quantitative dietary
exposure assessment from drinking water for D-mannose was not
conducted.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables). There
are no pesticide products containing D-mannose registered for any
specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found D-mannose to share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and D-mannose does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that D-mannose does not
have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in
the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children.
    Because of the non-toxic nature of D-mannose, there are no
threshold effects, which would trigger the application of section
408(b)(2)(C).

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Taking into consideration all available information on D-mannose,
EPA has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to
any population subgroup, including infants and children, will result
from aggregate exposure to D-mannose under reasonable foreseeable
circumstances. Therefore, the establishment of an exemption from
tolerance under 40 CFR 180.920 for residues of D-mannose when used as
an inert ingredient (sequestrant, binder, or filler) in pesticide
formulations applied preharvest to growing crops is safe under FFDCA
section 408.

V. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is not establishing a numerical level limiting the amount of
residues that cannot be exceeded.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established under 40 CFR 180.920 for D-mannose (CAS Reg. No. 3458-28-4)
when used as

an inert ingredient (sequestrant, binder, or filler) in pesticide
formulations applied preharvest to growing crops.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition
submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review
under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: January 27, 2014.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.920, alphabetically add the following inert ingredient
to the table to read as follows:

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

* * * * *

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

                               * * * * *;
D-mannose (CAS Reg. No. 3458-28- ...............  Sequestrant, binder,
 4).                                               filler.

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

[FR Doc. 2014-02694 Filed 2-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11096-11097]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04280]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator or Foreign
Utility Company Status

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lakeland Solar Energy LLC...............................     EG14-13-000
New AERG, LLC...........................................     EG14-14-000
Ameren Energy Generating Company........................     EG14-15-000

Soci[eacute]t[eacute] de cog[eacute]n[eacute]ration de       FC14-10-000
 St-F[eacute]licien, Soci[eacute]t[eacute] en commandite
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that during the month of January 2014, the status of
the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign
Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's
regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).

    Dated: February 20, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-04280 Filed 2-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 90 (Friday, May 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 26797]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10798]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Cannabusiness Group, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

May 7, 2014.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Cannabusiness Group, Inc. because of questions regarding the accuracy
of publicly available information about the company's operations.
Cannabusiness Group, Inc. is a Nevada corporation with its principal
place of business located in Irvine, California. Its stock is quoted on
OTC Link, operated by OTC Markets Group Inc., under the ticker: CBGI.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on
May 7, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on May 20, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-10798 Filed 5-7-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


requirements of
                                                                                (E)(ii). We will
                                                                                address these
                                                                                requirements in a
                                                                                separate action.
                                                                                EPA is
                                                                                disapproving the
                                                                                elements related
                                                                                to the prevention
                                                                                of significant
                                                                                deterioration,
                                                                                specifically as
                                                                                they pertain to
                                                                                section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C),
                                                                                (D)(i)(II),
                                                                                (D)(ii), and (J);
                                                                                however, Minnesota
                                                                                continues to
                                                                                implement the
                                                                                Federally
                                                                                promulgated rules
                                                                                for this purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-25969 Filed 10-19-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P