[Federal Register: November 23, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 225)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 70737-70740]
[DOCID:fr23no05-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP-2005-0175; FRL-7722-6]

Tralkoxydim; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of
tralkoxydim in or on barley grain, barley hay, barley straw, wheat
grain, and wheat hay, wheat forage, and wheat straw. Syngenta Crop
Protection, Inc. requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act
of 1996 (FQPA).

DATES: This regulation is effective November 23, 2005. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 23, 2006.

ADDRESSES: To submit a written objection or hearing request follow the
detailed instructions as provided in Unit VI. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
identification (ID) number OPP-2005-0175. All documents in the docket
are listed in the EDOCKET index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Tompkins, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

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

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

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

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

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

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of June 22, 2005 (70 FR 36162) (FRL-7715-
6), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
6F4631) by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro,
NC, 27419-8300. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.548 be amended
by establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide tralkoxydim,
2-(Cyclohexen-1-one, 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)propyl]-3-hydroxy-5-(2,4,6-
trimethylphenyl)-(9Cl), in or on barley grain, barley hay, wheat grain,
and wheat hay at 0.02 parts per million (ppm) and barley straw, wheat
forage, and wheat straw at 0.05 ppm. That notice included a summary of
the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., the
registrant.
    Public comments were received from B. Sachau who objected to the
``sale or marketing'' of this product. She asserted that the
registrant's statement in the notice of filing that ``it is unlikely''
that secondary residues would occur in animal commodities is not a
``strong enough'' standard. B. Sachau's comments contained no
scientific data or evidence to rebut the Agency's conclusion that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to tralkoxydim, including all anticipated dietary exposures
and all other exposures for which there is reliable information. EPA
has determined that there is no reasonable expectation of dietary risk
due to residues of tralkoxydim occurring in meat, milk, poultry, or
eggs

from its use on wheat and barley based on low levels of residues in
wheat and barley and risk assessments that were conducted by the
Agency. EPA has responded to B. Sachau's generalized comments on
numerous previous occasions (see 70 FR 1349, 1354 (January 7, 2005); 69
FR 63083, 63096 (October 29, 2004).
    Time limited tolerances for these commodities were previously
established in the Federal Register of August 13, 2003 (68 FR 48299)
(FRL-7315-9). The tolerances expired on May 1, 2005. The tolerances
were time limited because a second species carcinogenicity study needed
to be submitted and reviewed. The study was submitted and reviewed and
is discussed below.
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the
regulatory requirements of section 408 of FFDCA and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see the final rule on
Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL-
5754-7).

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, 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, consistent with section
408(b)(2) of FFDCA, for a tolerance for residues of tralkoxydim on
barley grain, barley hay, wheat grain, and wheat hay at 0.02 parts per
million (ppm) and barley straw, wheat forage, and wheat straw at 0.05
ppm.
    EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
establishing the tolerance was discussed in the Federal Register final
rule of December 16, 1998 (63 FR 69194) (FRL-6048-4).
    The only new data that have been submitted since this prior action
are data from the second species carcinogenicity study. Based on this
study, EPA downgraded the cancer classification of tralkoxydim from
``likely human carcinogen'' to ``suggestive evidence of
carcinogenicity.'' This classification was based on the occurrence of
benign testicular tumors at the high dose in male rats and equivocal
evidence of carcinogenicity in female hamsters. In light of the prior
cancer classification, EPA had previously conducted a quantitative
cancer risk assessment for tralkoxydim and concluded that the cancer
risk was negligible. Given that the new data indicate that tralkoxydim
is less likely to be carcinogenic, EPA finds that its earlier cancer
risk assessment more than adequately demonstrates that tralkoxydim
poses a negligible cancer risk. Accordingly, in reliance on its
previous risk assessment, as presented in the December 16, 1998 notice,
and the new cancer study, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to the general population, and to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to tralkoxydim residues.

IV. Conclusion

    Therefore, the tolerance is established for residues of
tralkoxydim, 2-(Cyclohexen-1-one, 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)propyl]-3-hydroxy-
5-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-(9Cl), in or on the raw agricultural
commodity barley grain, barley hay, wheat grain, and wheat hay at 0.02
ppm and barley straw, wheat forage, and wheat straw at 0.05 ppm.

V. Objections and Hearing Requests

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, any person may
file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request
a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which
govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in
40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require
some modification to reflect the amendments made to FFDCA by FQPA, EPA
will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments,
until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g)
of FFDCA provides essentially the same process for persons to
``object'' to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d) of FFDCA, as was
provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA. However, the period
for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.

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

    You must file your objection or request a hearing on this
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit
and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number OPP-2005-0175 in the subject line on the
first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and
must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before January
23, 2006.
    1. Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific
provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for
the objections (40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the
objections must include a statement of the factual issues(s) on which a
hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a
summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27).
Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing
request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that
information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be
disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.
    Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. You may also deliver your request to the
Office of the Hearing Clerk in Suite 350, 1099 14\th\ St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20005. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit VI.A., you
should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion
in the official record that is described in ADDRESSES. Mail your
copies, identified by docket ID number OPP-2005-0175, to: Public
Information

and Records Integrity Branch, Information Technology and Resource
Management Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the
location of the PIRIB described in ADDRESSES. You may also send an
electronic copy of your request via e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters
and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing
requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII
file format. Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may
also submit an electronic copy of your request at many Federal
Depository Libraries.

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

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

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of
significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This final rule does
not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law
104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive
Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive
Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does
not involve any technical standards that would require Agency
consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since
tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a
petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has
determined that this rule does not have any ``tribal implications'' as
described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6,
2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.''
``Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive
Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.''
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule.

VII. 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 this final rule in the Federal Register. This final
rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: October 28, 2005.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

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

PART 180--AMENDED

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

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

0
2. Section 180.548 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.548  Tralkoxydim; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
herbicide, tralkoxydim, 2-Cyclohexen-1-one, 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)propyl]-
3-hydroxy-5-

(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-(9Cl) in or on the raw agricultural
commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barley, grain..............................................         0.02
Barley, hay................................................         0.02
Barley, straw..............................................         0.05
Wheat, forage..............................................         0.05
Wheat, grain...............................................         0.02
Wheat, hay.................................................         0.02
Wheat, straw...............................................         0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 05-23106 Filed 11-22-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="25/04/2008 12:17:51 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 7, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38615-38617]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16463]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0569; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-047-AD;
Amendment 39-18199; AD 2015-14-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This AD was prompted
by a report of loose bolts that are intended to secure the translating
door crank assembly to the outside handle shaft. This AD requires a
detailed inspection for loose bolts on the aft translating door crank
assembly, and removal and reinstallation of the bolts. We are issuing
this AD to prevent loose bolts from falling out. If both bolts become
loose or fall out after the door is closed and locked, the door cannot
be opened from inside or outside, which could impede evacuation in the
event of an emergency.

DATES: This AD becomes effective August 11, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 11,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0569; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
    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 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>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0569.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc.
Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on August 15, 2014 (79 FR 48105). The NPRM was prompted by a
report of loose bolts that are intended to secure the translating door
crank assembly to the outside handle shaft. The NPRM proposed to
require a detailed inspection for loose bolts on the aft translating
door crank assembly, and removal and reinstallation of the bolts. We
are issuing this AD to prevent loose bolts from falling out. If both
bolts become loose or fall out after the door is closed and locked, the
door cannot be opened from inside or outside, which could impede
evacuation in the event of an emergency.
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2014-08, dated February 10, 2014 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

    There was one in-service report where the bolts securing the
translating door crank assembly to the outside handle shaft were
found loose. It was also found on another translating door that
sealant was missing on these bolts. If both bolts become loose or
fall out after the door is closed and locked, the door cannot be
opened from inside or outside.
    The aft entry translating door and aft service translating door
are classified as emergency exits. The inability to open an
emergency exit could impede evacuation in the event of an emergency.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the inspection of the translating
door crank assemblies for loose bolts, as well as appropriate
rectification [removal and reinstallation of the bolts].

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0569-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We have considered the comment received. The following
presents the comment received on the NPRM (79 FR 48105, August 15,
2014), and the FAA's response to the comment.

Request To Remove Certain Requirements From the NPRM (79 FR 48105,
August 15, 2014)

    Horizon Air requested that the job set-up and close-out procedures
included in Part A-INSPECTION, and Part B-RECTIFICATION, of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-75,
Revision A, dated July 11, 2013, be removed as requirements in the NPRM
(79 FR 48105, August 15, 2014). The commenter noted that only the
procedures included in paragraph B.

Procedure, of Part A and Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-75, Revision A, dated July 11, 2013,
provide corrective actions to address the unsafe condition. The
commenter stated that the job set-up and close-out procedures do not
directly correct the unsafe condition and restrict an operators'
ability to perform maintenance in conjunction with the detailed
inspection that would be required by the proposed AD.
    We partially agree with the commenter's request. We agree to remove
the job set-up procedures and most of the steps in the job close-out
procedures from this AD because those actions do not directly correct
the unsafe condition. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to
specify that the inspection must be done in accordance with paragraph
3.B., ``Procedure,'' of Part A--INSPECTION, of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-75, Revision A, dated
July 11, 2013.
    We have also revised paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD to
specify that the corrective actions must be done in accordance with
paragraph 3.B., ``Procedure,'' and steps 3.C.(4) and 3.C.(5) of
paragraph 3.C., ``Close Out,'' of Part B--RECTIFICATION, of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-75,
Revision A, dated July 11, 2013. The intent of this final rule is to
ensure that the aft entry translating door and aft service translating
door are correctly installed. Therefore, we consider the operational
tests in steps 3.C.(4) and 3.C.(5) of paragraph 3.C., ``Close Out,'' of
Part B--RECTIFICATION, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-52-75, Revision A, dated July 11, 2013, to be
required actions to ensure that these doors operate properly. If
maintenance is done concurrently with the required detailed inspection,
it should not affect an operator's ability to return the aircraft to
service. If the required detailed inspection cannot be completed
because the airplane is undergoing maintenance, then the actions
required by this AD can be accomplished just prior to the airplane
being returned to service. Concurrently performing maintenance and
doing the actions required by this AD should not cause a delay in an
airplane's return to service.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 48105, August 15, 2014) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 48105, August 15, 2014).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-75, Revision A, dated
July 11, 2013. This service information describes procedures for a
detailed inspection for loose bolts on the aft translating door crank
assembly, and removal and reinstallation of the bolts. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 82 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it will take about 7 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per
product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on
U.S. operators to be $48,790, or $595 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 regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D= FAA-2014-0569; 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
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.

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):

2015-14-01 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18199. Docket No. FAA-
2014-0569; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-047-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective August 11, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -
402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001
through 4411 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of loose bolts that are
intended to secure the translating door crank assembly to the
outside handle shaft. We are issuing this AD to prevent loose bolts
from falling out. If both bolts become loose or fall out after the
door is closed and locked, the door cannot be opened from inside or
outside, which could impede evacuation in the event of an emergency.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Corrective Actions

    Within 600 flight hours or 100 days, whichever occurs first
after the effective date of this AD: Do a detailed inspection of the
aft translating door crank assembly for loose bolts, in accordance
with paragraph 3.B., ``Procedure,'' of Part A--INSPECTION, of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-75,
Revision A, dated July 11, 2013. Doing the applicable actions
specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD terminates the
requirements of this paragraph.
    (1) If any loose bolt is found: Before further flight, remove
and reinstall the translating door crank assembly bolt, in
accordance with paragraph 3.B., ``Procedure,'' and steps 3.C.(4) and
3.C.(5) of paragraph 3.C., ``Close Out,'' of Part B--RECTIFICATION,
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin
84-52-75, Revision A, dated July 11, 2013.
    (2) If no loose bolt is found: Within 6,000 flight hours or 36
months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD,
remove and reinstall the translating door crank assembly bolts, in
accordance with paragraph 3.B., ``Procedure,'' and steps 3.C.(4) and
3.C.(5) of paragraph 3.C., ``Close Out,'' of Part B--RECTIFICATION,
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin
84-52-75, Revision A, dated July 11, 2013.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g), (g)(1), and (g)(2) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-52-75, dated July 27, 2012, which is not
incorporated by reference in this AD.

(i) 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.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-08, dated February
10, 2014. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0569-0002.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-75, Revision A, dated July
11, 2013.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) 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.
    (4) 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
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 25, 2015.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-16463 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM June 20, 2006 SUBJECT: Triadimefon: HED Response to Comments Received During the Public Comment Phase ( Docket ID Number EPA HQ OPP 2005 0258/ Closed 4/ 17/ 06).

DP Barcode: 328262 FROM: Richard Griffin, Risk Assessor Reregistration Branch II Health Effects Division ( HED)

THROUGH: Alan Nielsen, Branch Senior Scientist Reregistration Action Branch II Health Effects Division ( 7509P)

TO: John Pates, Jr., Chemical Review Manager Veronique Lacapra, Team Leader Reregistration Branch I Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508P)

As part of the reregistration process for triadimefon, this memo is the HED response to public comments concerning the HED human health risk assessment dated February 9, 2006. This response is specific to the comments received from the primary registrant ( Bayer CropScience) on April 13, and April 17, 2006. This memo also addresses comments received from the U. S. Triazole Task Force on May 17, 2006 concerning the 2/ 15/ 06 HED risk assessment for the triazole derived metabolites ( triazole alanine, triazole acetic acid, and 1,2,4 triazole. Also, Bayer CropScience submitted a proposed triadimefon dietary risk assessment on May 8, 2006, which is currently being reviewed by HED.

The Bayer comments, and proposed risk assessment revisions, are based on refinements to residue estimates for food uses, refinements to application rates on turf, and refinements to the percent of use on golf course turf. HED will evaluate each proposed 2 refinement for use in the Agency's human health risk assessment for triadimefon.

General Comments 1. As part of the triadimefon risk assessment, the Agency requested that references to cucurbits be removed from all labels. Bayer agrees with this requirement, and points out that cucurbits were, in fact, removed from all labels on 6/ 4/ 97.

2. The Agency requested that product labels be modified to specify that aerial applications to orchard crops be made in a minimum of 10 gallons of water per acre. Bayer agrees with this requirement, and will modify labels accordingly.

3. The Agency requested that product labels be modified to specify the removal of rotational crop restrictions. Bayer agrees with this requirement and will modify labels accordingly.

4. The Agency requested data to correct a deficiency concerning pineapple field trial data. Bayer has resolved the issue by identifying a report, submitted in 1996, that addressed pineapple field trials.

Dietary Risk 5. Bayer has identified a typographical error in the dietary risk assessment memo of 11/ 23/ 05 ( the aPAD is listed as 0.01 mg/ kg/ day instead of the correct 0.0034 mg/ kg/ day). The Agency notes the error ( the correct value was used in the Agency risk assessment).

6. The Agency estimates for acute dietary risk ( food and water sources combined) were 710 percent of the aPAD for the population sub group of " all infants", and, as noted in Bayer's comments, 230 percent of the aPAD for the general ( or average) U. S. population.

Bayer reports that a significant decrease in acute dietary risk estimates can be made ( with all population sub groups less than 100% of the aPAD) if based on revisions to residue estimates for food uses. Specifically, Bayer has used PDP and FDA monitoring data for grape and raspberry commodities, and processing data for pineapple juice, grape juice, and pineapple pulp.

This residue data, finalized in the May 8 Bayer dietary risk assessment, is in review in HED, and will be used as part of a revised risk assessment if found appropriate. Note however, that the significant decrease in dietary risk estimates, reported by Bayer, are due primarily to a revision to the drinking water contamination estimates.

7. As noted above, The Agency estimates for acute dietary risk are based, in part, on estimates of residues in drinking water. Ground and surface sourced drinking water concentrations may be factored by estimates termed " Percent Cropped Area", or PCA, values depending on available data. Lacking reliable data, default values of 100%, for turf, and 87% for all other scenarios were used by the Agency. 3 Bayer's response to the use of these upper bound factors was to gather data, from multiple U. S. States, concerning the percent of a watershed that may be used for golf courses. Based on limited data, Bayer suggests a PCA factor of 7.7% be used to factor drinking water derived from surface sources. Bayer also notes in their response that although the agricultural use of triadimefon is less than 5% of total use, the agricultural use will be factored into surface water estimates. At his point, however, the Agency cannot agree to the use of percent usage data and will continue to assume 100% use on turf until adequate data indicate otherwise.

Worker Risk 8. The Agency occupational risk assessment indicated that some mixer/ loader scenarios using the triadimefon wettable powder formulation, will have Margins of Exposure less than the target level of 100. Bayer's response, that exposure can be reduced significantly, is based on the use of water soluble packaging using poly vinyl acetate, or PVA.

The Agency concurs that risk reduction can be achieved for most wettable powder scenarios if water soluble packaging is used as an engineering control. However, based on ( limited) PHED data, two exposure scenarios would remain a concern even with the assumption of maximum risk mitigation: 1) mixing/ loading/ applying wettable powders with a low pressure handwand to turf ( LCO and golf course) at the 5.4 lb ai/ A ( CA only) application rate, where the MOE = 46 with double layer and gloves and a 90% protection factor half face respirator, and; 2) mixing/ loading/ applying wettable powders with a low pressure handwand to turf ( LCO and golf course) at the 2.7 lb ai/ A ( except CA) application rate, where the MOE = 92 with double layer and gloves and a 90% protection factor half face respirator.

9. The Agency occupational risk assessment indicated that some mixer/ loader/ applicator scenarios for turf and pine seedling applications will have MOE estimates less than the target level of 100. Bayer has commented that acceptable levels can be achieved by correcting the application rate in turf from 5.4 lb ai/ A to 2.7 lb ai/ A, and by using ORETF exposure data.

The Agency, in fact, used ORETF for scenarios where it was appropriate. In regard to the rate of 5.4 lb ai/ A, there are several current labels that contain the maximum 5.4 lb ai/ A rate ( for uses on pink snow mold and gray snow mold in California only), including Bayleton 50% WSP Fungicide, Bayleton 50% Wettable Powder Fungicide, Bayleton 50 DF, and The Andersons 1.0% Bayleton Fungicide. When an agreement is made to remove the 5.4 lb ai/ A rate from all the above labels, the rate of 2.7 lb ai/ A will serve as the maximum rate for for the purposes of risk assessment.

10. As part of the occupational risk assessment, the Agency included two labeled uses for triadimefon, ( tree trunk injection and ready to use briquettes), but in fact, there is no exposure data on which to base risk estimates. Bayer returned comment by noting that these two uses are not uses registered by Bayer. 4 Again, the Agency responds that these are current labeled uses that must remain in the risk assessment, unless an agreement is made to remove these uses from all labels.

11. Also, as part of the occupational risk assessment, the Agency included a use registered to Bayer; a dip treatment. As the case with the uses mentioned above, there is no reliable data on which to base exposure/ risk estimates. Bayer commented that a risk assessment can be prepared for a dip treatment using surrogate data from a worse case scenario, such as commercial pine seed treatment.

However, the Agency does not agree that using surrogate data from a worse case scenario such as commercial pine seed treatment would be appropriate because dip applications are likely to involve significant exposure to liquids. Instead, the Agency proposes to mitigate possible risk concerns from this application method by a label requirement for the use of protective equipment (" baseline" attire plus chemical resistant gloves and a chemical resistant apron).

12. The Agency's assessment of the use of triadimefon for the treatment of ponderosa pine seed indicated an exposure concern for all activities believed to be associated with this scenario. In order to refine the risk estimates for this scenario, Bayer has provided information from Auburn University's, Scott Enebak, that describes the entire pine seed treatment process. It is important to note that Dr. Enebak's assessment that a typical nursery will treat 300 to 500 lbs of seed per day with a maximum of 1,000 lbs per day ( if more than one mixer is used) is significantly different than the Agency'S estimation of 12,485 pounds of seed treated per day.

The Agency notes the information provided by Dr. Enebak was useful and, has added this application method to the " on nursery" assessment for treated pine seeds. However, the assessment for the hopper box and planter box scenarios will be retained since there is no information that these techniques are not used to treat pine seeds. EPA notes that the risks of concern for the pine seed assessment were from the commercial treatment of pine seeds. The information provided by Bayer did not impact the commercial pine seed assessment and these risks remain an issue for reregistration.

Residential / Application Risk 13. The Agency's risk assessment for residential turf was based on the application rate of 5.2 lb ai/ acre. Bayer has commented that the Agency has over estimated risk from turf use since the actual maximum rates are 2.7 pounds ai/ acre on golf courses and 1.3 pounds ai/ acre on residential turf.

Currently there are several labels, including labels intended for occupational application to residential sites and labels primarily intended for homeowner application to home lawns that contain the maximum 5.4 lb ai/ A rate for use on pink snow mold and gray mold in California ( only) and contain a 2.7 lb ai/ A rate as the maximum rate for uses on turf outside of California. Examples of such labels include Bayleton 50% WSP Fungicide, Bayleton 50% Wettable Powder Fungicide, Bayleton 50 DF, and The 5 Andersons 1.0% Bayleton Fungicide. Therefore, EPA will continue to assess the risks at the 5.4 lb ai/ A rate for California, and will add the 2.7 lb ai/ A rate as the maximum rate for uses on turf outside of California. The 1.3 lb ai/ A rate will be used as Bayer's proposed maximum application rate for residential sites, ( including lawns, parks, recreation areas, athletic fields, school grounds, etc).

Residential / Postapplication Risk 14. The Agency's post application risk estimates ( MOEs) for many adult, youth, and children's exposure scenarios are below the target risk level of 1,000.

Bayer comments that the adult and youth postapplication risk assessments can be refined to " acceptable" MOEs by using the correct application rate of 1.3 lb ai/ A and by using data from the Bayer study Evaluation of Potential Exposure Resulting from Contact with Bayleton Treated Turf, MRID 43125401. Child postapplication scenarios, except incidental ingestion of granules or pellets, can be refined to generally acceptable MOEs by using the 1.3 lb ai/ A rate and the Bayer study. By using the 1.3 lb ai/ A rate, the child incidental ingestion of granules or pellets scenario can be improved. However, the Bayer study does not apply to this ( oral dose) scenario.

The Agency has used both the " turf transferable" ( TTR) residue values and transfer coefficients from the Bayer study to assess the risk for high contact dermal activities on lawns. EPA's Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Exposure Assessments indicates that default TTR values of five and twenty percent should be used to assess incidental oral exposures and from hand to mouth/ object to mouth scenarios, respectively. Therefore, EPA has not revised the risk assessment for incidental oral exposures to toddlers. EPA has assessed risk using the 5.4 lb ai/ A rate ( CA only), the 2.7 lb ai/ A rate ( outside of CA) and Bayer's proposed 1.3 lb ai/ A rate for residential sites.

EPA notes that even with the proposed 1.3 lb ai/ A rate and the use of the Bayer turf study, risk remains a concern for toddlers. Only one scenario, incidental soil ingestion, had MOEs > 1,000. Short term MOEs were < 1,000 for residential turf/ high contact activities, hand to mouth activities, object to mouth activities, and incidental ingestion of granules/ pellets.

Toxicology / Endpoints / Dose Selection 15. The triadimefon risk assessment's toxicology data requirement table listed the requirement for a 90 day inhalation study as " not satisfied." In their response memo, Bayer questions the need and scientific rationale for this study. The Agency will amend the data requirement table to reflect that an inhalation study is not required at this time. Other corrections to the toxicology requirement table will be made as appropriate.

16. For triadimefon risk assessment, HED selected the subchronic neurotoxicity study as the basis for the acute ( dietary) reference dose, the chronic ( dietary) reference dose, the " incidental" oral dose, and the inhalation exposure dose. Bayer agrees with the study 6 selected, but states that the dose used for risk assessment, or Point of Departure ( POD) may be several fold higher than the NOAEL used for risk assessment. When Bayer submits this proposal the Agency will review it as soon as possible.

17. As the case with triadimefon, Bayer agrees with the Agency's use of the triadimefon subchronic neurotoxicity study for acute ( aPAD) and chronic ( cPAD) dietary risk assessment, for " incidental" oral, and for inhalation risk assessment. Bayer, however, believes that the dose level, or " Point of Departure," may be several fold higher than the NOAELs reported in these studies. Bayer indicates they are currently evaluating the data from this study to assess the appropriate POD for risk assessment.

18. Bayer's concluding comments to the Agency's risk assessment for triadimefon concern toxicology requirements:

Bayer notes the 21 day dermal toxicity study, listed as not required by the Agency, should be required. The Agency agrees and the 21 day study is, in fact, required for triadimefon.

Bayer notes the 90 day inhalation toxicity study, listed as required, is not discussed in the risk assessment. The Agency agrees with Bayer, and a rationale will be provided in a revised risk assessment for triadimefon.

Bayer notes the acute neurotoxicity screening study, reviewed by the Agency, satisfies the guideline 870.6200a requirements. The Agency agrees with Bayer on this issue and does not currently require a new acute neurotoxicity screening study ( and will correct the toxicology requirements able).

Bayer notes the developmental neurotoxicity study, listed as not required, is actually now required, with the rationale for requirement in the toxicology section of the risk assessment. The Agency concurs with this, and a developmental neurotoxicity is currently required ( and the table will be corrected to show this).

Bayer notes the dermal penetration study, listed as required, is not actually needed for risk assessment, since the 15 day dermal toxicity study is an acceptable guideline study. The Agency agrees with Bayer on this issue and does not currently require a new dermal penetration study.

Bayer notes the list of special ocular effects in the toxicology requirement table and believes it is not appropriate to include these. The Agency re states that these studies are not required for triadimefon.

U. S Triazole Task Force Comments:

1. The Task Force notes that on page 38, Tables 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, and 6.8, ( of the triazole risk assessment) the listed application rate for triadimefon is 5.4 lbs a. i./ acre and this value is incorrect. The actual maximum application rate for Bayer's product 7 Bayleton 50 is 5.5 lb. product/ acre. Since the product Bayleton 50 is 50% triadimefon, the actual rate of triadimefon application is 2.75 lb a. i./ acre. This error results in a twofold increase in the calculated residential exposure values utilized in the assessments.

EPA: Currently, there are several labels that contain the maximum 5.4 lb ai/ A rate ( for uses on pink snow mold and gray snow mold in California only), including Bayleton 50% WSP Fungicide, Bayleton 50% Wettable Powder Fungicide, Bayleton 50 DF, and The Andersons 1.0% Bayleton Fungicide. The labels state that a maximum of 4 ounces can be applied per 1,000 square feet. That application rate converts to 5.4 pounds active ingredient per acre. Therefore, EPA will continue to assess the risks at the 5.4 lb ai/ A rate for California only and will add the 2.7 lb ai/ A rate as the maximum rate for uses on turf outside of California.

2. The Task Force notes that on page 42, Table 7.1: The values listed under the headings Dermal, Hand to Mouth, Object to Mouth, Soil Ingestion, Aggregate and Aggregate MOE for the infants and children subgroups are incorrect due to the error sited in comment # 1.

EPA: EPA reiterates that it believes that the 5.4 lb ai/ A rate is on several current triadimefon labels as the maximum application rate in California. EPA has added the 2.7 lb ai/ A rate for turfgrass outside of California and a 1.3 lb ai/ A rate that Bayer, in their April 2006 comments, states is the maximum rate for use on residential turf.

3. The Task Force notes that on page 43, Table 7.2. The values listed under the headings Soil Ingestion, Aggregate and Aggregate MOE for the infants and children subgroups are incorrect due to the error sited in comment # 1.

EPA: EPA reiterates that it believes that the 5.4 lb ai/ A rate is on several current triadimefon labels as the maximum application rate in California. EPA has added the 2.7 lb ai/ A rate for turfgrass outside of California and a 1.3 lb ai/ A rate that Bayer, in their April 2006 comments, states is the maximum rate for use on residential turf.

4. The Task Force has submitted corrected aggregate ( residential) risk calculations in an attached Excel workbook.

EPA: EPA will assess risks using the 5.4 lb ai/ A rate ( CA only), the 2.7 lb ai/ A rate ( outside of CA) and Bayer's proposed 1.3 lb ai/ A rate for residential sites. EPA notes that even with the proposed 1.3 lb ai/ A rate and the use of the Bayer turf study, risk remains a concern for toddlers. Only one scenario, incidental soil ingestion, had MOEs > 1,000. Short term MOEs were < 1,000 for residential turf/ high contact activities, handto mouth activities, object to mouth activities, and the " incidental" ingestion of granules/ pellets. EPA notes that the U. S. Triazole Task Force calculations used a dermal absorption factor to calculate dermal risks. EPA is assessing risks using the toxicological endpoint from a dermal study


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 13, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3676-3677]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02084]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1031; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-21]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Class E Airspace and Amendment of Class E
Airspace; Ephrata, WA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface, and modifies Class E surface area airspace
at Ephrata Municipal Airport, Ephrata, WA. This action also updates the
geographic coordinates of the airport in the associated Class E
airspace areas to match the FAA's aeronautical database. These changes
are necessary to accommodate airspace redesign for the safety and
management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations within the
National Airspace System. Also, an editorial change would be made to
the Class E surface airspace legal description replacing ``Airport/
Facility Directory'' with the term ``Chart Supplement''.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, April 25, 2019. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1
Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
    For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
(202) 741-6030, or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bonnie Malgarini, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes and amends Class E airspace at Ephrata Municipal
Airport, Ephrata, WA, to support standard instrument approach
procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (83 FR 26889; June 11, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2017-1031 to
establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface and modify Class E surface area airspace at Ephrata Municipal
Airport, Ephrata, WA. Interested parties were invited to participate in
this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal
to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface and modifying Class E surface area airspace at
Ephrata Municipal Airport, Ephrata, WA.
    Class E surface area airspace is modified to within 4.2-mile radius
of the airport (from a 4.4-mile radius) and within 2.7 miles each side
of the Ephrata VORTAC 043[deg] and 233[deg] radials extending from the
4.2-mile radius to 7 miles northeast of the VORTAC. The exclusionary
language noting Moses Lake, WA, Class D airspace is removed as it is
not needed to define the boundary.
    Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet is established
within 4.2 miles northwest and 6.6 miles southeast of the 043[deg] and
223[deg] bearings from the airport extending from the airport to 11.1
miles northeast and 6.3 miles southwest of the airport, respectively.
    Additionally, this action updates the geographic coordinates (from
lat. 47[deg]18'17'' N, long. 119[deg]30'49'' W to lat. 47[deg]18'29''
N, long. 119[deg]31'01'' W) for the associated Class E airspace areas
to match the FAA's aeronautical database. Also, an editorial change is
made to the Class E airspace legal descriptions replacing Airport/
Facility Directory with Chart Supplement.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and
6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and
effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this
document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

ANM WA E2 Ephrata, WA [Amended]

Ephrata Municipal Airport, WA
    (Lat. 47[deg]18'29'' N, long. 119[deg]31'01'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.2-
mile radius of Ephrata Municipal Airport. This Class E airspace area
is effective during specific dates and times established in advance
by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter
be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
* * * * *

ANM WA E5 Ephrata, WA [New]

Ephrata Municipal Airport, WA
    (Lat. 47[deg]18'29'' N, long. 119[deg]31'01'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within 4.2 miles northwest and 6.6 miles southeast of the 043[deg]
and 223[deg] bearings from Ephrata Municipal Airport extending from
the airport reference point to 11.1 miles northeast and 6.3 miles
southwest of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on January 31, 2019.
Shawn M. Kozica,
Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2019-02084 Filed 2-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43796-43797]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17466]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0535]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; China Basin, San Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Third Street Drawbridge across the
China Basin, mile 0.0 at San Francisco, CA. The deviation is necessary
to allow the bridge to be part of the staging area for runners
participating in the scheduled Giant Race event. This deviation allows
the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the
deviation period.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on August
4, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2013-0535], is
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the
``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the
line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary

deviation, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section,
Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The City of San Francisco Public Works
Department has requested a temporary change to the operation of the
Third Street Drawbridge, mile 0.0, over China Basin, at San Francisco,
CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides 7 feet vertical clearance
above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw
opens on signal if at least one hour notice is given as required by 33
CFR 117.149. Navigation on the waterway is recreational.
    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position 6
a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on August 4, 2013, to allow runners to participate
in the Giant Race event. This temporary deviation has been coordinated
with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary
deviation were raised. The drawspan can be operated upon one hour
advance notice for emergencies requiring the passage of waterway
traffic.
    No alternative route is available for mariners. Vessels that can
transit the bridge, while in the closed-to-navigation position, may
continue to do so at any time.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 19, 2013.
D.H. Sulouff,
District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013-17466 Filed 7-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P