UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

	Date:	25/SEP/2007

	Subject:	Dimethenamid-P.  Petition for Registration for Uses on
Turnips, Rutabagas, Radishes, Winter Squash, Pumpkins, and Hops.
Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data.  Petition Number
6E7152

DP Num:	341886	Decision Number:	372743

PC Code:	120051	MRID Nos.:	47005001, 47005002, 47005003, 47005004

40 CFR 180.	464

Chemical Class:	Chloroacetamide herbicide

	From:	Debra Rate, Ph.D., Biologist

		Alternative Risk Integration and Assessment (ARIA)

		Risk Integration, Minor Use, and Emergency Response Branch (RIMUERB)

		Registration Division (RD) (7505P)

Through:	William Cutchin, Acting Branch Senior Scientist

		ARIA

	RIMUERB/RD (7505P)

			And

	Douglas Dotson, Ph.D., Chemist

	Registration Action Branch 2 (RAB2)

	Health Effects Division (HED) 7509P

	To:	Breann Hanson

		ARIA

		RIMUERB/RD (7505P)

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 This memorandum was originally prepared under
contract by Dynamac Corporation (submitted 7/24/2007).  The memorandum
has been reviewed by ARIA/RD and revised to reflect current Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP) policies.

Executive Summary

Dimethenamid-P, which is a form of dimethenamid that is enriched in the
biologically active S-isomer (90:10, S:R), is a selective, preemergence
herbicide registered for the control of annual broadleaf and grass weeds
in a variety of field and vegetable crops.  Tolerances are established
for residues of dimethenamid,
(RS)-2-chloro-N-[(1-methyl-2-methoxy)ethyl]-N-(2,4-dimethylthien-3-yl)ac
etamide, in/on numerous raw agricultural commodities at 0.01 ppm, which
is the lowest limit of method validation (LLMV).  Tolerances are
established in 40 CFR §180.464(a) and (b) for both dimethenamid (50:50,
S:R) and dimethenamid-P (90:10, S:R).  As a result, tolerances that are
established for the proposed commodities will apply to both dimethenamid
and dimethenamid-P.  Hereafter in this document, both formulations will
be referred to as dimethenamid.

Dimethenamid is currently registered to BASF Corporation for use on a
variety of food/feed crops as a 6 lb/gal emulsifiable concentrate (EC,
Outlook® Herbicide; EPA Reg. No. 7969-156).  The Interregional Research
Project No. 4 (IR-4) is proposing new uses for dimethenamid-P on
radishes, turnips, rutabagas, pumpkins, winter squash, and hops.
Dimethenamid (6 lb/gal EC) is being proposed for a single broadcast
postemergence application at up to 0.98 lb ai/A to radishes at the 2- to
4-leaf stage and to turnips and rutabagas at the 2- to 8-leaf stage.
The specified preharvest intervals (PHIs) are 21 days for radishes
(roots and tops), 14 days for turnip and rutabaga tops, and 40 days for
turnip and rutabaga roots.  The proposed use on winter squash and
pumpkins is restricted to OR and WA and is for single preemergence
application at up to 0.98 lb ai/A, with a PHI of 90 days.  The proposed
use for hops is restricted to ID, OR and WA and is for a single
soil-directed or banded application between rows at up to 0.98 lb ai/A,
when hops are at the vegetative or early bloom stages.  The proposed PHI
for hops is 60 days.  All applications are to be made using ground
equipment; the use of aerial applications and chemigation are
prohibited.  In conjunction with these uses, IR-4 is proposing the
following permanent tolerances for dimethenamid:

Hops, dried cones	0.05 ppm

Pumpkin	0.01 ppm

Radish, roots	0.01 ppm

Radish, tops	0.01 ppm

Rutabaga, roots	0.01 ppm

Rutabaga, tops	0.1   ppm

Turnip, greens	0.1   ppm

Turnip, roots	0.01 ppm

Turnip, tops	0.1   ppm

Winter squash	0.01 ppm

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The nature of dimethenamid residues in plants is
understood based on the adequate soybean, corn and sugar beet metabolism
studies.  The residue of concern for purposes of the tolerance
expression and risk assessment is dimethenamid per se.  The qualitative
nature of the residue in livestock is also understood based on the
adequate goat and hen metabolism studies.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
Considering the extensive metabolism of dimethenamid in animals, the
exaggerated dosing levels used in the animal metabolism studies, and the
expected low level of dietary exposure of livestock to dimethenamid,
ARIA has concluded that livestock feeding studies and tolerances for
animal commodities are not required at the present time.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 An adequate gas chromatograph/nitrogen-phosphorus
detection method (GC/NPD; AM-0884-0193-1) is available for enforcing
tolerances on plant commodities.  The LLMV is 0.01 ppm for the requested
plant commodities, except hops (which has an LLMV of 0.05 ppm).  This
method does not separate the R and S isomers of dimethenamid, and is
therefore adequate for both dimethenamid and dimethenamid-P.  As
tolerances are not required for animal commodities, no analytical
methods for animal commodities are required.

The residue data from the submitted turnip and radish field trials were
collected using the above GC/NPD enforcement method, and residue data
from the squash and hops field trials were collected using methods which
were derived from the enforcement method.  In each case, the method used
for data collection was adequately validated in conjunction with the
analysis of field trial samples.  In the turnip and radish field trials,
the statistically calculated limits of quantitation (LOQs) for
dimethenamid are 0.008 ppm for turnip tops, 0.004 for radish tops and
0.005 for turnip and radish roots.

In the squash field trials, residues of dimethenamid were determined
using a gas chromatography with electron capture detection (GC/ECD)
method (Method SAM 3002.01) that is a modification of the above
enforcement method.  The calculated LOQ for dimethenamid in squash is
0.005 ppm.

In the hops field trials,   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 residues of dimethenamid
were determined using a gas chromatography with a mass selective
detector (GC/MSD)   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 method.  Residues are analyzed
by GC/MSD using an external standard and the m/z 230 ion of
quantitation.  The statistically calculated LOQ is 0.034 ppm for
dimethenamid in hops.

The available turnip, radish, winter squash and hops field trial data
are adequate and support the proposed use patterns.  The number and
geographic distribution of the field trials are adequate and the
appropriate samples were collected at the proposed PHIs.  Samples were
analyzed for the residues of concern using adequate methods, and the
sample storage conditions and intervals are supported by the available
storage stability data.

In the eight adequate turnip field trials, dimethenamid (6 lb/gal EC)
was applied to turnips during vegetative development as a single
post-emergence broadcast application at 0.94-1.03 lb ai/A (1x rate)
using ground equipment.  Residues of dimethenamid were non-detectable
in/on all 16 root samples harvested at 28-40 days after treatment (DAT),
and <0.01-0.093 ppm in/on 16 samples of tops harvested at 14-16 DAT.
Average residues were 0.018 ppm in tops and <0.01 ppm in roots.  The
field trial data on turnips will support the equivalent use on
rutabagas.  Because the radish, top and turnip, top data are over 10x
difference (0.01 ppm and 0.1 ppm, respectively) not the 5x defined in
OPP policy, the data do not support a crop group tolerance.

In the six radish field trials, dimethenamid (6 lb/gal EC) was applied
to radishes at the 2- to 4-leaf stage as a single post-emergence
broadcast application at 0.96-1.03 lb ai/A (1x rate) using ground
equipment.  Residues of dimethenamid were <0.01 ppm in/on all 12 samples
of radish tops and <0.01 ppm in/on all 12 samples of radish roots
harvested at 15-21 DAT.

In the three winter squash field trials conducted in EPA growing Region
12, dimethenamid (6 lb/gal EC) was applied to winter squash as a single
preemergence broadcast application at 0.95-1.00 lb ai/A (1x rate) using
ground equipment.  Residues of dimethenamid were <0.01 ppm in/on all 6
samples of winter squash harvested at normal crop maturity, 108-131 DAT.
 The field trial data on winter squash will support the equivalent use
on pumpkins.

In the three hops field trials, dimethenamid (6 lb/gal EC) was applied
to hops during vegetative development through early bloom as a single
soil directed application at 0.97-1.02 lb ai/A (1x rate) using ground
equipment.  Residues of dimethenamid were <0.05 ppm in/on all 6 samples
of dried hop cones harvested at 60-61 DAT.

No processing studies were submitted with the current petition as none
of the proposed uses include crops having regulated processed
commodities.  An adequate confined rotational crop study is available
which supports the current label restrictions for rotational crops.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Regulatory Recommendations and Residue Chemistry
Deficiencies

No deficiencies were noted in the subject petition that would preclude
establishing permanent tolerances for dimethenamid on the proposed crops
provided the petitioner addresses the deficiencies noted below:

1.	A revised Section B must be provided.  Currently, the proposed uses
on rutabagas (roots and tops) are associated with the uses on radishes
(roots and tops).  This should be revised, as uses on rutabagas (roots
and tops) should only be addressed in conjunction with the proposed uses
on turnips (tops and roots).

2.	Although the proposed label directions for turnips and rutabagas
specify a 40-day PHI for roots, ARIA notes that the available turnip
field trial data would support lowering the PHI for roots to 30 days,
which matches the proposed use in the submitted Section B.

Provided the deficiencies are adequately addressed, ARIA recommends
establishing permanent tolerances for residues of dimethenamid at 0.01
ppm on radish roots and tops, turnip roots, rutabaga roots, pumpkins and
winter squash.  Tolerances should also be established at 0.1 ppm on
turnip tops and rutabaga tops, and at 0.05 ppm on hops, dried cones.  It
should be noted that the data submitted for radish, turnip and rutabaga,
while adequate for individual crop tolerances, are do not support a crop
group tolerance.  All of the recommended tolerances should be placed in
40 CFR §180.464(a), without restriction, except for the tolerances for
pumpkins and winter squash which should be placed in 40 CFR
§180.464(c), as the use on these crops is restricted to OR and WA
(Table 7).  The data submitted for hops support a national tolerance
placing it in 40 CFR §180.464(a), even though the labeled use submitted
by the petitioner restricts distribution to ID, OR and WA (>95% of US
hops production).

Background

Dimethenamid and dimethenamid-P are selective, preemergence
chloroacetamide-type herbicides registered for the control of annual
broadleaf and grass weeds in a variety of field and vegetable crops.
Dimethenamid is an equal part mixture of the R and S-isomers (50:50,
S:R); whereas, dimethenamid-P is enriched in the biologically active
S-isomer (90:10, S:R).  In the U.S., both herbicides are registered to
BASF Corporation and are marketed under the trade names Frontier,
Outlook, Optill, and Guardsman.  Both herbicides are formulated as ECs
at concentrations of 1.7-7.5 lb/gal.  These formulations can be applied
as banded or broadcast pre-plant, preemergence and/or a postemergence
applications using ground or aerial equipment.

Permanent tolerances are established for residues of dimethenamid,
(RS)-2-chloro-N-[(1-methyl-2-methoxy)ethyl]-N-(2,4-dimethylthien-3-yl)ac
etamide, applied as either the 50:50 or 90:10 S:R isomers, in/on
numerous raw agricultural commodities at 0.01 ppm, which is the LLMV [40
CFR §180.464(a)].  A time-limited tolerance has also been established
for dimethenamid at 0.01 ppm in/on winter squash, which is set to expire
on 30/JUN/2009 [40 CFR §180.464(b)].  Tolerances for residues of
dimethenamid in animal commodities have not been established.

IR-4 has submitted a petition (PP# 6E7152) supporting the use of
dimethenamid-P (6.0 lb/gal EC) on turnips, rutabagas, radishes, hops,
winter squash and pumpkins.  The nomenclature and physicochemical
properties of dimethenamid are presented below in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1.	Dimethenamid-P Nomenclature.

Compound

Common name	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Dimethenamid-P (or S-Dimethenamid);
90:10, S:R isomer ratio

Company experimental name	BAS 656H; SAN 1289

IUPAC name	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
(S)-2-chloro-N-(2,4-dimethyl-3-thienyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)
acetamide

CAS name
2-chloro-N-(2,4-dimethyl-3-thienyl)-N-[(1S)-2-methoxy-1-methylethyl]
acetamide

CAS registry number	163515-14-8

End-use product (EP)	6 lb/gal EC (Outlook® Herbicide; EPA Reg. No.
7969-156)

Table 2.	Physicochemical Properties of Dimethenamid.

Parameter	Value	Reference

Melting point/range	<-50ºC	MRID 47005001

pH	3.3 (in 1% aqueous emulsion)

	Density	1.195 g/mL

	Water solubility	1449 ±17 mg/L (pH 6.16)

	Solvent solubility	20.8g/100 mLin hexane; soluble in all proportions in
tetrahydrofuran, isopropyl alcohol, acetone, acetonitrile, DMSO, DCM,
toluene and n-octanol.

	Vapor pressure	1.88 (±0.29) x 10-5 mm Hg

	Dissociation constant, pKa	No Dissociation

	Octanol/water partition coefficient 	77.6 and 1.89 (POW and log POW)

	UV/visible absorption spectrum	ε = 7560; 33 nm

860.1200  Directions for Use

IR-4 is proposing the use of dimethenamid-P, formulated as a 6 lb/gal EC
(Outlook® Herbicide; EPA Reg. No. 7969-156), on turnips, rutabagas,
radishes, winter squash, pumpkins and hops. The uses on winter squash
and pumpkins are restricted to the states of OR and WA, and the use on
hops is restricted to the states of ID, OR and WA.  The petitioner
provided example labels containing the proposed use directions which are
summarized in Table 3.

Table 3.  Summary of Directions for Use of Dimethenamid-P.

Applic. Timing, Type, and Equip. 1	Formulation

[EPA Reg. No.]	Applic. Rates

(lb ai/A)	Max. No. Applic. per Season	Max. Seasonal Applic. Rate

(lb ai/A)	PHI

(days)	Use Directions and Limitations 2

Hops (only in ID, OR and WA)

Directed or banded post-emergence application from vegetative to early
bloom stages, using ground equipment 	6.0 lb/gal EC

[7969-156]	0.56-0.98	1	0.98	60	This use is restricted to the states of
ID, OR and WA.

Radish

Broadcast post-emergence application when plants are at 2- to 4-leaf
stage, using ground equipment 	6.0 lb/gal EC

[7969-156]	0.56-0.98	1	0.98	21

	Turnip and Rutabaga

Broadcast post-emergence application when plants are at 2- to 8-leaf
stage, using ground equipment 	6.0 lb/gal EC

[7969-156]	0.56-0.98	1	0.98	tops – 14

roots - 40

	Winter Squash and Pumpkins (only in OR and WA)

Broadcast preemergence application using ground equipment	6.0 lb/gal EC

[7969-156]	0.56-0.98	1	0.98	90	This use is restricted to the states of
OR and WA

1	Do not apply by air or through any irrigation systems.

2	Crops listed on the main label may be replanted at anytime, and
fall-seeded cereal grains may be planted 4 months after application.
All other crops may be planted the following spring.

Conclusions:  The proposed use directions are adequate and are supported
by the available field trial data.  However, the petitioner must submit
a revised Section B.  Currently, the Section B associates the proposed
uses on rutabaga (roots and tops) with that of radish.  However, the
proposed uses of rutabaga (roots and tops) should only be addressed in
conjunction with the proposed uses on turnips (tops and roots).  In
addition, although the proposed label directions for turnips and
rutabagas specify a 40-day PHI for roots, ARIA notes that the available
turnip field trial data would support lowering the PHI for roots to 30
days, as requested in the Section B.

860.1300 Nature of the Residue – Plant

HED Metabolism Committee Memo, M. Flood, 10/NOV/1992

HED Metabolism Committee Memo, M. Bradley, 08/DEC/1993

45189703.der (sugar beet metabolism), 14/APR/2004, D. Dotson

DP Num: 304790, R. Griffith et al., 12/AUG/2004

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The nature of the residue in plants is adequately
understood based on the available soybean, corn and sugar beet
metabolism studies.  The soybean and corn metabolism studies were
reviewed by the HED Metabolism Committee, which concluded that the
metabolism of dimethenamid in plants involves conjugation with
glutathione, with subsequent transformation of the glutathione moiety to
yield a variety of metabolites.  The residue of concern for purposes of
the tolerance expression (and risk assessment) was determined to be
dimethenamid per se.

The sugar beet metabolism study was reviewed later in conjunction with a
petition for use of dimethenamid-P on various root, tuber, corm and bulb
vegetables.  Following three early season foliar applications of
[3-14C-thienyl]dimethenamid to sugar beets at a total rate of 1.2 lb
ai/A, total radioactive residues (TRR) were 0.078 and 0.284 ppm in/on
sugar beet roots and tops harvested 126 days after the last treatment.
The metabolite profile was similar for roots and tops, and dimethenamid
was not detected in/on either commodity.  For both roots and tops, the
majority of 14C-residues were characterized as minor unknowns each
present at ≤8% of the TRR.  One unknown polar fraction accounted for
>10% of the TRR in roots, but was present at <0.01 ppm.  The metabolic
pathway for [14C]dimethenamid in sugar beets is complex, but proceeds
via a pathway similar to that observed in corn and soybeans.  However,
two metabolites not identified in corn or in soybean were found in sugar
beets.  These are the sulfoxide of the cysteine conjugate and the
N-malonyl conjugate of the cysteine conjugate, which together accounted
for <6 % of the TRR in sugar beets.  The [14C]dimethenamid sugar beet
metabolism study is adequate.  Parent, dimethenamid, was extensively
metabolized and not detected in sugar beet roots or tops.

Conclusions:  After considering the extensive metabolism of dimethenamid
in plants (soybean, corn and sugar beet) HED concluded that the residue
of concern for purposes of the tolerance expression (and risk
assessment) was determined to be dimethenamid per se.  The nature of the
residue in plants is adequately understood and adequately supports the
proposed new uses associated with this petition (PP# 6E7152).

860.1300 Nature of the Residue - Livestock

HED Metabolism Committee Memo, M. Flood, 10/NOV/1992

DP Num: 304790, R. Griffith et al., 12/AUG/2004

The qualitative nature of the residue in livestock is understood based
on the available goat and poultry metabolism studies.    SEQ CHAPTER \h
\r 1 In the ruminant metabolism study, a dairy goat was dosed orally for
4 days with [14C]dimethenamid at levels equivalent to 223 ppm (1,335x
the dietary burden).  Total radioactive residues were 16.6 ppm in liver,
9.9 ppm in kidneys, 0.97 ppm in muscle and fat, and 0.98 ppm in milk.
[14C]Dimethenamid was extensively metabolized and identification of
metabolites was limited.  The principle metabolites identified in milk
and tissues included:  M17 in kidney (9% TRR), liver (2.7% TRR), muscle
(11.4% TRR), fat (5.4% TRR), and milk (5.2% TRR); the cysteine conjugate
of parent in kidney (1% TRR), liver (7.2% TRR), muscle (14.2% TRR), and
milk (11.2% TRR); and the glutathione conjugate of parent in kidney (5%
TRR), liver (2.2% TRR), muscle (8.3% TRR), fat (2.1% TRR), and milk
(7.9% TRR).  Metabolite M7 was also identified as a major component in
kidneys (24.1% TRR) and milk (24.2% TRR), and Metabolite M22 was
identified in liver (6.1% TRR).  None of the remaining unknown
components were present at more than 10% of the TRR in milk or any
tissue.

In the poultry metabolism study, three hens were dosed orally for 4 days
with [14C]dimethenamid at levels equivalent to 167 ppm (17,000x maximum
dietary burden (MDB) of 0.01 ppm).  Total radioactive residues were 8.33
ppm in liver, 0.58 ppm in muscle, 0.29 ppm in fat, 0.30 ppm in egg
whites and 0.62 ppm in egg yolks.  The metabolism of [14C]dimethenamid
in hens was extensive, with parent only being identified in fat (34.9%
TRR).  Other than parent in fat, no one compound appears to account for
more than 10% of the TRR in any given tissue.  Although only limited
identification of 14C-residues was achieved, the poultry metabolism
study was deemed adequate because the dosing level was highly
exaggerated compared to the MDB and the extensive metabolism of
dimethenamid resulted in numerous minor metabolites (<10% TRR).

Conclusions:  After considering the extensive metabolism of dimethenamid
in animals, the exaggerated dosing levels used in the ruminant and
poultry metabolism studies, and the expected low level of dietary
exposure of livestock to dimethenamid, HED concluded that tolerances
(and risk assessment) are not required for animal commodities.  The
proposed uses, which include turnip tops, do not alter the above
determinations regarding the need for tolerances on meat and milk.

860.1340 Residue Analytical Methods

Enforcement methods

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 An adequate enforcement method is available for
determining residues of both dimethenamid and dimethenamid-P residues in
plant commodities.  The GC/NPD method (AM-0884-0193-1) has been
validated by the Agency and submitted for publication in FDA’s
Pesticide Analytical Manual, Volume II.  The method does not separate
the R and S isomers of dimethenamid, and the LOQ is 0.01 ppm.  As
tolerances are not required for animal commodities, no analytical
methods for animal commodities are required.

Data collection methods

Samples of roots and tops from the turnip and radish field trials were
analyzed for residues of dimethenamid-P using the current tolerance
enforcement method (  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 AM-0884-0193-1).  For this
method,   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 residues are extracted with methanol:water
(95:5, v:v), purified using a C18 SPE column, and concentrated to an
aqueous fraction.  Residues are further cleaned up using an Extrelut
column eluted with toluene, and a silica gel column eluted with ethyl
acetate:cyclohexane (1:4, v:v).  The eluate is then concentrated, and
residues are redissolved in toluene and analyzed by GC/NPD using an
external standard.  The LLMV for dimethenamid is 0.01 ppm in roots and
tops.  The statistically calculated LOQs were 0.008 ppm for turnip tops,
0.004 for radish tops and 0.005 for turnip and radish roots.

In the squash field trials, residues of dimethenamid were determined
using a GC/ECD method (Method SAM 3002.01) that is a modification of the
above enforcement method that eliminated the C18 SPE cleanup step,
replaced toluene with hexane, and used ECD instead of NPD. The LLMV was
0.01 ppm and the calculated LOQ was 0.005 ppm.

In the hops field trials,   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 residues of dimethenamid
were determined using a   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 GC/MSD method which was
derived from the tolerance enforcement method.  For this method,   SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1 residues are extracted from hops with methanol:water
(95:5, v:v), filtered, and initially cleaned up by elution through a
Nexus SPE cartridge using methanol:water (80:20, v:v).  Residues are
then concentrated to an aqueous remainder, diluted with water and saline
solution, and partitioned into ethyl acetate.  Residues are next
concentrated to dryness, redissolved in ethyl acetate:hexane (20:80,
v:v), and further cleaned up by elution through a NH2 SPE cartridge.
Residues are then concentrated to dryness, redissolved in ethyl acetate
with 0.2% corn oil, and analyzed by GC/MSD using an external standard.
The m/z 154, 230, and 232 ions were monitored for identification, and
the m/z 230 ion was used for quantifying residues.  The LLMV for
dimethenamid is 0.05 ppm in dried hops, and the statistically calculated
LOQ is 0.034 ppm.

Conclusions.  An adequate enforcement method is available for
determining dimethenamid (and dimethenamid-P) residues in plant
commodities.  The residue data from the submitted field trials were
collected using methods that were adequately validated in conjunction
with the analysis of field trial samples.

860.1360 Multiresidue Methods

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The FDA PESTDATA database dated NOV/2001 (PAM
Volume I, Appendix I) indicates that dimethenamid is not recovered using
Multiresidue Methods Section 303 (Mills, Onley, and Gaither Method;
Protocol E, nonfatty food) or Section 304 (Mills Method; Protocol F,
fatty food).

860.1380 Storage Stability

In the current petition, storage stability studies were conducted
concurrently with the various field trials.  Upon receipt by the
analytical laboratory, control samples of each crop matrix were
fortified with dimethenamid at 0.1-0.5 ppm and stored under the same
conditions as the field trial samples.  At the end of the analytical
phase, stored fortified samples were analyzed in triplicate along with
freshly fortified samples and controls.  No 0-day analyses were
conducted.

ozen storage (≤-18ºC) for up to 24 months in turnip roots and tops,
20.5 months in radish roots and tops, 2.2 months in winter squash, and
11.5 months in dried hops (Table 4).

Conclusions:  The available storage stability data are adequate and
support the sample storage conditions and intervals from the submitted
field trials.

Table 4.	Summary of Storage Conditions and Durations of Samples from
Crop Field Trials.

Crop Matrix 	Storage Temperature  (°C)	Actual Storage Duration

(months)	Interval of Demonstrated Storage Stability (months)

Turnip tops	-20	13.5-20	24

Turnip roots

13.3-20	24

Radish tops	-20	19.4-20.3	20.7

Radish roots

18.9-20.3	20.5

Winter squash	-18	1-2	2.2

Hops, dried cones	-18	12.2-12.7			11.5

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 860.1400 Water, Fish, and Irrigated Crops

This guideline requirement is not relevant to the current petition as no
aquatic uses are being proposed for dimethenamid.

860.1460 Food Handling

This guideline requirement is not relevant to the current petition as no
food handling uses are being proposed for dimethenamid.

860.1480 Meat, Milk, Poultry, and Eggs

HED Metabolism Committee Memo, M. Flood, 10/NOV/1992

DP Num: 304790, R. Griffith et al., 12/AUG/2004

In the current petition, the only new potential livestock feedstuff is
turnip tops.  Based on the recommended and established tolerances for
dimethenamid on feedstuffs, and the most recent guidance from HED
(October 2006) concerning revisions of feedstuffs in Table 1 (OPPTS
860.1000) and constructing reasonably balanced diets for livestock, the
MDBs were calculated to be 0.017 ppm for beef cattle, 0.016 ppm for
dairy cattle, and 0.01 ppm for poultry and swine (Table 5) (e-mail: J.
Stokes to D. Rate, 23/AUG/2007).

Table 5.   Calculation of Maximum Dietary Burdens of Livestock for
Dimethenamid Residues. (e-mail: J. Stokes to D. Rate, 23/AUG/2007)

Feedstuff	Dietary 1 Component	% Dry Matter 2	% Diet 2	Recommended
Tolerance (ppm)	Dietary Contribution (ppm) 3

Beef Cattle  R: 15%; CC:  75 %;  PC: 10%

grass, straw	R	88	10	0.01	0.0011

beet, sugar, dried pulp	R	88	5	0.01	0.0006

corn, field, grain/ milled bypdts/

sorghum, grain, grain	CC	85	70	0.01	0.0082

beet, sugar, molasses	CC	75	5	0.01	0.0007

soybean seeds	PC	92	10	0.01	0.0011

TOTAL BURDEN

	100

0.017

Dairy Cattle  R: 45%; CC: 45 %;  PC: 10%

grass, straw	R	88	10	0.01	0.0011

corn, field, forage/silage	R	40	30	0.01	0.0075

beet, sugar, dried pulp	R	88	5	0.01	0.0006

corn, field, grain/ milled bypdts/

sorghum, grain, grain	CC	85	40	0.01	0.0047

beet, sugar, molasses	CC	75	5	0.01	0.0006

soybean seeds	PC	92	10	0.01	0.0011

TOTAL BURDEN

	100

0.016

Poultry   CC: 75 %;  PC: 25 %

corn, field, grain/ milled bypdts/

sorghum, grain, grain	CC	--	75	0.01	0.0075

soybean seeds/peanut meal	PC

25	0.01	0.0025

TOTAL BURDEN

	100

0.010

Swine CC: 85 %;  PC: 15 %

corn, field, grain/ milled bypdts/

sorghum, grain, grain	CC	85	85	0.01	0.0085

soybean seeds/peanut meal	PC

15	0.01	0.0015

TOTAL BURDEN

	100

0.010

1	R = roughage, CC = carbohydrate concentrate, and PC = protein
concentrate.

2	Table 1 (OPPTS Guideline 860.1000).

3	Contribution = ([tolerance /% DM] X % diet) for beef and dairy cattle;
contribution = ([tolerance] X % diet) for poultry and swine.

There are no available livestock feeding studies with dimethenamid or
dimethenamid-P.  However, HED has previously concluded that tolerances
(and risk assessment) are not required for dimethenamid residues in
livestock commodities.  After considering the   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
extensive metabolism of dimethenamid in animals, the exaggerated dosing
levels used in the animal metabolism studies, and the expected low level
of dietary exposure of livestock to dimethenamid, HED concluded that
residues of dimethenamid were unlikely to be quantifiable in livestock
commodities [40 CFR §180.6(a)(3)] (HED Metabolism Committee Memo, M.
Flood, 10/NOV/1992).  At the time of this decision the MDB was 0.019 ppm
for cattle and 0.01 ppm for poultry and swine.  Therefore, no feeding
studies or tolerances are presently required.

860.1500 Crop Field Trials

47005001.der, D. Rate, 13/AUG/2007 (turnip)

47005002.der, D. Rate, 13/AUG/2007  (radish)

47005003.der, D. Rate, 13/AUG/2007 (winter squash)

47005004.der, D. Rate, 13/AUG/2007 (hops)

IR-4 has submitted field trial data on turnips, radishes, winter squash,
and hops to support national uses of dimethenamid-P on turnips,
rutabagas, radishes, and hops and regionally restricted uses on winter
squash and pumpkins.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The results from these
studies are discussed below and summarized in Table 6.

Table 6.	Summary of Residue Data from Crop Field Trials with
Dimethenamid-P (6 lb/gal EC).

Crop matrix	Total Applic. Rate  (lb ai/A)	PHI (days)	Residue Levels
(ppm) 1

	n	Min.	Max.	HAFT 2	Median	Mean	Std. Dev.

Turnip tops	0.95-1.01	14-16	16	<0.01	0.093	0.072	0.008	0.018	0.022

Turnip roots

28-40	16	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	0.01	0.01	--

Radish tops	0.96-1.04	15-21	12	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	0.01	0.01	--

Radish roots

	12	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	0.01	0.01	--

Winter squash	0.95-1.00	108-131	6	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	0.01	0.01	--

Hops, dried cones	0.97-1.02	60-61	6	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	0.01	0.01	--

1	The statistically calculated LOQs for dimethenamid are 0.008 and 0.005
for turnip tops and roots, 0.004 and 0.005 ppm for radish tops and
roots, 0.005 ppm for squash, and 0.034 ppm for hops.    For calculating
the median, mean and standard deviation the LLMV (0.01 ppm) was used for
non-detectible (ND) residue values.

2	HAFT = Highest average field trial result.

Turnips  In nine field trials conducted during 2001-2002 in NAFTA
growing Zones 1A (NS; 1 trial), 2 (NC, GA, TN; 3 trials), 5 (OH, ON; 2
trials), 5B (QC; 1 trial), 6 (TX; 1 trial) and 10 (CA; 1 trial).  One
trial (QC05) was not conducted under good laboratory practice (GLP)
conditions; therefore, the results were not included in the summary
table or tolerance calculations.  At each test site, dimethenamid-P (6
lb/gal EC) was applied to turnips as a single post-emergence broadcast
application at a rate of 0.94-1.03 lb ai/A (1x rate) during vegetative
development.  Applications were made using ground equipment at volumes
of 21-30 gal/A, and did not include the use of any spray adjuvants.
Single control and duplicate treated samples of turnip tops were
collected from each test at 14-16 DAT, and root samples were collected
at 28-33 DAT, with the exception of one site (40 DAT).  Samples were
stored frozen for up to 20 months prior to analysis.  The storage
intervals are supported by the available storage stability data.

The GC/NPD method (AM-0884-0193-1) used to determine residues of
dimethenamid in/on turnip tops and roots was adequately validated in
conjunction with the field trials.  The statistically calculated LOQ is
0.008 ppm for tops and 0.005 ppm for roots, and the calculated LOD is
0.0027 ppm for tops and 0.0016 ppm for roots.  The LLMV for turnip
matrices was shown to be 0.01 ppm for dimethenamid-P with recovery
ranges from 107 to 115% for tops and 91 to 102% for roots.

Following a single post-emergence broadcast application of
dimethenamid-P (EC) at 1x the proposed use rate, residues of
dimethenamid were 0.01-0.093 ppm in/on 13 samples of tops and <0.01 ppm
in all 16 samples of roots.  Residues were >LLMV in only 3 out of 16
samples of tops.  Average residues were 0.018 ppm in tops and <0.01 ppm
in roots.

Radishes  In six field trials conducted during 2002 in EPA growing
Regions 1, 3, 5, 10 and 11, dimethenamid-P (6 lb/gal EC) was applied to
radishes at the 2-4 leaf stage as a single post-emergence broadcast
application at a rate of 0.96-1.03 lb ai/A (1x rate).  Applications were
made using ground equipment at volumes of 21-30 gal/A, and did not
include the use of any spray adjuvants.  Single control and duplicate
treated samples of radish tops and roots were collected from each test
site at 15-21 DAT.  Samples were stored frozen for up to 20 months prior
to analysis, and a concurrent storage stability study was conducted
supporting the stability of dimethenamid in radish tops and roots at
-20ºC for up to 20 months.

The GC/NPD method (AM-0884-0193-1) used to determine residues of
dimethenamid in/on radish tops and roots was adequately validated in
conjunction with the analysis of field trial samples.  The calculated
LOQ is 0.004 ppm for tops and 0.005 ppm for roots and the calculated LOD
is 0.0013 ppm for tops and 0.0015 ppm for roots.  The LLMV for radish
matrices was shown to be 0.01 ppm for dimethenamid-P with recovery
ranges from 92 to 95% for tops and 90 to 103% for roots.

Following a single post-emergence broadcast application of
dimethenamid-P (EC) to radishes at 1x the proposed use rate, residues of
dimethenamid were <0.01 ppm in/on all 12 samples of radish tops and
<0.01 ppm in/on all 12 samples of radish roots harvested at 15-21 DAT.

Winter Squash  In three field trials conducted during 2002 in EPA
growing Region 12, dimethenamid-P (6 lb/gal EC) was applied to winter
squashes as a single preemergence broadcast application at a rate of
0.95-1.00 lb ai/A (1x use rate).  Applications were made using ground
equipment at volumes of 20-27 gal/A, and did not include the use of any
spray adjuvants.  Single control and duplicate treated samples of squash
were collected from each test site at normal maturity, 108-131 DAT.
Samples were stored frozen for up to 2 months prior to analysis.  This
storage interval is supported by the available storage stability data.

The GC/ECD method (SAM 3002.01) used to determine residues of
dimethenamid in/on squash was adequately validated in conjunction with
the analysis of field trial samples.  The statistically calculated LOQ
and LOD were 0.005 and 0.002 ppm, respectively.  The LLMV for winter
squash matrices was shown to be 0.01 ppm for dimethenamid-P with a
recovery range of 65 to 78%, averaging 74%.

Following a single preemergence application of dimethenamid-P (EC) at 1x
the proposed use rate, residues of dimethenamid were <0.01 ppm in/on all
6 samples of winter squash harvested at maturity, 108-131 DAT.

Hops  In three field trials conducted during 2003 in EPA growing Regions
11 and 12, dimethenamid-P (6 lb/gal EC) was applied to hops as a single
soil-directed application during vegetative development through early
bloom, at a rate of 0.97-1.02 lb ai/A (1x rate).  Applications were made
using ground equipment at volumes of 29-32 gal/A, and did not include
the use of any spray adjuvants.  Control and duplicate treated samples
of fresh hop cones were collected from each test site at 60-61 DAT, and
dried within one day of harvest using commercial dryers.  Samples of
dried hop cones were stored frozen for up to 12.7 months prior to
analysis, and a concurrent storage stability study was conducted
supporting the stability of dimethenamid in squash at -18ºC for up to
11.5 months.

The GC/MSD method used to determine residues of dimethenamid in/on hops
was adequately validated in conjunction with the analysis of field trial
samples.  The statistically calculated LOQ and LOD are 0.034 and 0.011
ppm, respectively.  The LLMV for hops was shown to be 0.05 ppm for
dimethenamid-P with a recovery range of 95 to 99%.

Following a single soil-directed application of dimethenamid-P (EC) to
hops at 1x the proposed use rate, residues of dimethenamid were <0.05
ppm in all 6 samples of dried hop cones.

Conclusions  The turnip, radish, winter squash and hops field trial data
are adequate and support the proposed use patterns.  Adequate numbers of
tests were conducted on each crop in the appropriate geographical
regions.  Samples were analyzed for the residue of concern using
adequate methods, and the sample storage conditions and intervals are
supported by the available storage stability data.

With the exception of turnip tops, residues of dimethenamid were <LLMV
in/on all samples of radish roots and tops (<0.01 ppm), dried hop cones
(<0.05 ppm), winter squash (<0.01 ppm) and turnip roots (<0.01 ppm).
Residues in/on turnip tops were <0.01-0.093 ppm, with only 3 of 16
samples having residues above the LLMV.

As the LLMV for radishes, turnips, and squash is 0.01 ppm, the above
data will support tolerances of 0.01 ppm for radish roots and tops,
turnip roots, and winter squash (restricted to OR and WA).  Tolerances
should be set at 0.1 ppm for turnip tops (See Attachment III, MRL
Calculator), and at 0.05 ppm for hops (hops LLMV <0.05 ppm).  The
residue data on winter squash can be translated to support a regional
tolerance (OR and WA) of 0.01 ppm tolerance on pumpkins, and the residue
data on turnips can be translated to support similar tolerances on
rutabaga roots (0.01 ppm) and tops (0.1 ppm).

860.1520 Processed Food and Feed

There are no regulated processed commodities associated with the
proposed uses of dimethenamid-P on hops, radishes, turnips, rutabagas,
winter squash or pumpkins.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 860.1650 Submittal of Analytical Reference
Standards

Analytical standards for dimethenamid and dimethenamid-P are currently
available in the National Pesticide Standards Repository.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 860.1850 and 860.1900 Confined and Field
Accumulation in Rotational Crops

DP Num: D184986, M. Flood, 07/APR/1993

DP Num: D304790, R. Griffith et al., 12/AUG/2004

Based on the current and proposed uses of dimethenamid,   SEQ CHAPTER \h
\r 1 requirements for confined/field accumulation in rotational crops
are satisfied based on the acceptable confined rotational crop study.
The submitted study includes data on winter wheat planted 141 DAT,
lettuce planted 322 DAT, and carrots planted 332 DAT.  The maximum
concentration of any metabolite/degradate in harvested wheat was 0.01
ppm for the sulfoxide of thiolactic acid conjugate.  Based on these
data, HED determined that a 4-month rotational interval is adequate for
fall-seeded cereal grains, and other crops may be planted the following
spring.  These recommendations are consistent with the rotational crop
restrictions on the current label for the 6 lb/gal EC formulation of
dimethenamid-P (see Table 3).

860.1550 Proposed Tolerances

The Agency has determined that the residue of concern in plants is
dimethenamid per se (M. Flood, 10/NOV/1992; and M. Bradley,
08/DEC/1993).  Permanent tolerances are established for residues of
dimethenamid,
(RS)-2-chloro-N-[(1-methyl-2-methoxy)ethyl]-N-(2,4-dimethylthien-3-yl)ac
etamide, applied as either the 50:50 or 90:10 S:R isomers, in/on
numerous raw agricultural commodities at 0.01 ppm, which is the LLMV [40
CFR §180.464(a)].  A time-limited tolerance has also been established
for dimethenamid at 0.01 ppm in/on winter squash, which is set to expire
on 30/JUN/2009 [40 CFR §180.464(b)].  Tolerances for residues of
dimethenamid in animal commodities have not been established.

Adequate residue data are available to support the proposed tolerances.
With the exception of turnip tops, residues of dimethenamid were <LLMV
in/on all samples of radish roots and tops (<0.01 ppm), dried hop cones
(<0.05 ppm), winter squash (<0.01 ppm) and turnip roots (<0.01 ppm).
Residues in/on turnip tops were <0.01-0.093 ppm, with only 3 of 16
samples having residues above the LLMV.

As the LLMV for radishes, turnips, and squash is 0.01 ppm, the above
data will support tolerances at 0.01 ppm for radish roots and tops,
turnip roots, and winter squash (Table 7).  Tolerances should be set at
0.1 ppm for turnip tops, and at 0.05 ppm for hops.  The residue data on
winter squash can be translated to support a 0.01 ppm tolerance on
pumpkins.  As described above, the residue data on turnips should be
translated to support similar tolerances on rutabaga roots (0.01 ppm)
and tops (0.1 ppm).  As data on winter squash were only provided from
EPA growing Region 12, regionally restricted tolerances (OR and WA)
should be established for pumpkins and winter squash (Table 7).  The
Section 18 tolerance for winter squash should not be revoked.

Based on data from the ruminant and poultry metabolism studies and the
calculated MDB for livestock to dimethenamid residues, tolerances for
livestock commodities are not required at the present time.

There are no established or proposed Codex, Canadian or Mexican maximum
residue limits (MRLs) for dimethenamid on any of the crops/commodities
being proposed in this petition (see attached international residue
limit (IRL) status sheet).  Therefore, there is no question about
compatibility of the proposed tolerances.

Table 7. 	Tolerance Summary for Dimethenamid

Commodity	Proposed Tolerance (ppm)	Recommended Tolerance (ppm)	Comments;

Correct Commodity Definition

40 CFR §180.464(a)

Hop, dried cones	0.05	0.05	Adequate hops residue data are available for
a national registration.

Radish, tops	0.01	0.01	Adequate radish residue data are available.

Radish, roots	0.01	0.01

	Rutabaga, roots	0.01	0.01	The available turnip residue data will
support the equivalent tolerances on rutabaga roots and tops.

Rutabaga, tops	0.1	0.1

	Turnip, greens	0.1	0.1	Adequate residue data are available on turnip
roots and tops.

Turnip, roots	0.01	0.01

	Turnip, tops	0.1	0.1

	40 CFR §180.464(c)

Pumpkin	0.01	0.01	Adequate winter squash residue data are available to
support regionally restricted tolerances on both Pumpkin and Squash,
winter

Winter squash	0.01	0.01

References

Subject:	The Metabolism Committee Meeting Held on November 3, 1992.
Plant and Animal Metabolism of SAN-582H

From:		M. Flood

To:		The Metabolism Committee

Dated:		10/NOV/1992

MRIDs:	None

DP Num:	184986

Subject:	Revised Labels for SAN-582H.  Submission Dated 24/NOV/1992.

From:		M. Flood

To:		C. Giles-Parker and J. Stone

Dated:		07/APR/1993

MRIDs:	None

Subject:	The Metabolism Committee Meeting Held on December 1, 1993.
Dimethenamid Plant Metabolism and DRES Analysis

From:		M. Bradley

To:		The Metabolism Committee

Dated:		08/DEC/1993

MRIDs:	None

DP Num:	288341

Subject:	Dimethenamid DER Sugar Beet Metabolism Study

From:		D. Dotson

To:

Dated:		14/APR/2004

MRIDs:	45189703

DP Num:	304790

Subject:	Dimethenamid/Dimethenamid-P.  Human Health Risk Assessment

From:		R. Griffin, J. Facey, and D. Anderson

To:		J. Tompkins

Dated:		12/AUG/2004

MRIDs:	None

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Attachments:

I. International Residue Limit Status sheet

II. Dietary Burden with comments

III. MRL Calculator – Turnip Tops

Attachment I:

INTERNATIONAL
RESI啄⁅䥌䥍⁔呓呁单܇桃浥捩污丠浡㩥†ⴲ档潬潲中⠭
ⰲⴴ楤敭桴汹㌭琭楨湥汹⴩ⵎ⡛匱⴩ⴲ敭桴硯⵹ⴱ敭桴
汹瑥票嵬愠散慴業敤䌇浯潭慎敭ഺ楄敭桴湥浡摩⠠〵
㔺ⰰ删愠摮匠阠獩浯牥⥳䐍浩瑥敨慮業ⵤ⁐㤨㨰〱㩓
⁒獩浯牥爠瑡潩ܩ⁘牐灯獯摥琠汯牥湡散

 Reevaluated tolerance

 Other	Date: 01/AUG/2007

Codex Status (Maximum Residue Limits)	U. S. Tolerances

 No Codex proposal step 6 or above

√No  Codex proposal step 6 or above for the crops requested	Petition
Number:  PP#6E7152

DP Num:  341886

Other Identifier:

Residue definition (step 8/CXL):

Dimethenamid –P and its enantiomer..  The definition applies to
residues arising from the use of either dimethenamid-p or dimethenamid.
	Reviewer/Branch:  D. Rate / ARIA/RIMUERB

	Residue definition:  dimethenamid,
1(R,S)-2-chloro-N-[(1-methyl-2-methoxy)ethyl]-N-(2,4-dimethylthien-3-yl)
-acetamide, applied as either the 90:10 or 50:50 S:R isomers  SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

Crop (s)	MRL (mg/kg)	Crop(s) 	Tolerance (ppm)

Hop, dried cones	0.05

Pumpkin	0.01

Radish, tops	0.01

Radish, roots	0.01

Rutabaga, roots	0.01

Rutabaga, tops	0.1

Squash, winter	0.01

Turnip, roots	0.01

Turnip, tops	0.1

	Limits for Canada	Limits for Mexico

      No Limits

√   No Limits for the crops requested	   No Limits

√   No Limits for the crops requested

Residue definition
2-chloro-N-(2,4-dimethyl-3-thienyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)
acetamide	Residue definition:  dimethenamid

Crop(s)	MRL (mg/kg)	Crop(s)	MRL (mg/kg)

	Notes/Special Instructions:

S.Funk, 08/01/2007.

Attachment II:

Dietary Burden:

File:  Dimethenamid-P dietary burden.revised.js.bs.082308.doc

The dietary burden associated with the proposed new uses and use changes
are summarized in the Table 5.  They were provided by Jerry Stokes of
HED by e-mail (J. Stokes to D. Rate, 23/AUG/2007).

The following comments are included to help explain why and how
commodities were utilized in the preparation of the MDB.

Comments:

Residues on grass commodities are from treatment of grass grown for
seed.  In these operations, mainly confined to WA, OR, and ID, the cash
crop is the seed.  The major commodity is grass straw that is harvested
at time of seed collection.   The only grass hay available is from fall
regrowth, but regrowth usually occurs to a limited extent.  The small
amount of grass hay that is available is normally grazed by mature beef
cows (best suited for dry cows) and younger beef cattle, or cut and fed
as green chop.  Grass hay is not available to finishing feedlot beef.
Likewise it is not available to mature dairy cows.  The straw, however
can be fed to feedlot beef and possibly to dairy (although potentially
high pesticide residues ending up in milk may preclude use for dairy).

The requested tolerance for turnips involves only the varieties grown
for leafy greens.  The varieties grown for livestock feeding are not
included.  Therefore, turnips tops and roots are not considered in the
dietary burdens for cattle.

Field corn forage/silage is used instead of sweet corn cannery waste.
Cannery waste is a local and seasonal byproduct and, although it may be
fed mainly to local dairy herds, any residues from cannery waste is far
outweighed by the vast amount of field corn forage/silage fed to dairy
cows on a daily basis.

Grain from both field corn and grain sorghum are fed to all livestock.
In addition, milled byproducts from field corn processing are fed to all
livestock.

Although peanut meal can be fed to all livestock, because of its
tendency to become rancid shortly after production, it is normally used
in the peanut growing/processing areas.  This limits the feeding of the
peanut meal in high density poultry and swine production areas.  Soybean
meal and seeds are the most common protein source for livestock. Others
used are cottonseed, canola, safflower, and sunflower meals.
Production volumes for peanut meal are below any of the feedstuffs
listed above.

Sugarbeet dried pulp and sugarbeet molasses are added to the proposed
cattle rations because these two occur as regular feedstuffs in many
beef and dairy all across the nation.

Attachment III:

MRL Calculator:

The Agency’s Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field
Trial Data was utilized for determining appropriate tolerance levels on
turnip, tops, as less than 20% of the residue values were above the LOQ
in/on turnip, tops.  However, the tolerance spreadsheet was not used to
calculate tolerances for the remaining commodities, as all residues of
the samples from these crops were <LOQ.

+

,

>

?

@

A

F

G

I

J

h

h

ༀ銄ᄄ溄ㇻĤ葞Ғ葠ﭮ摧憛i	̀Ȥ␱愁Ȥ摧憛i
̀Ĥ␱愁Ĥ摧憛i

㓿ۖĀ̊H뀃昄Ĵऀ+

?

@

G

I

i

Ž

³

´

Ç

Î

ã

ä

摧⚻=ഀJ

h

³

¹

Æ

É

Í

Ð

Û

Ü

á

ä

å

ù

ú

ÿ

I

J

d

Å

î

h

ఏܪ栕爁{栖炵1㬀

혈Fᴃἀ蠍총$Ȇ

혈Fᴃἀ蠍총$Ȇ

혈Fᴃἀ蠍총$Ȇ

혈Fᴃἀ蠍총$Ȇ

혈Fᴃἀ蠍총$Ȇ

혈Fᴃἀ蠍총$Ȇ

혈Fᴃἀ蠍총$Ȇ

혈Fᴃἀ蠍총$Ȇ

혈Fᴃἀ蠍총$Ȇ

h

 hÍX

 hÍX

hÍX

 hÍX

ጆ

ጆ

ጆ

ጆ

ጆ

ጆ

ጆ

耀ጆ

ጆ

ጆ

ጆ

ጆ

혈〆㋽쐊ꈎ鴒阗⬞耦Ȇ

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

LSOP, the field trial application rates were within 25% of the maximum
application rates, and the PHIs are consistent with the appropriate
stage of maturity and the proposed PHIs for each commodity.  The residue
values used to calculate the alfalfa tolerances are provided in Table
I-1.

The datasets for dimethenamid residues in turnip, tops were entered into
the tolerance spreadsheet.  Visual inspection of the lognormal
probability plot (Figures I-1) indicates that the dataset is not
lognormal, and results from the approximate Shapiro-Francia test
statistic (Figure I-2) confirm this assumption.  Therefore, the CA
method was used to calculate the tolerance.  Although the calculator
says that the tolerance for turnip, tops should be set at 0.09 ppm
because one of the residues exceeded 0.09 ppm, ARIA recommends a
tolerance of 0.1 ppm.

Table I-1:

Residues of Proposed Crop Matrices (ppm)

Radish, Tops	Radish, Roots	Turnip, Tops	Turnip, Roots	Winter Squash
Hops, dried Cones

ND	ND	0.015	ND	ND	ND

ND	ND	0.010	ND	ND	ND

ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND

ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND

ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND

ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND

ND	ND	ND	ND

ND	ND	ND	ND

ND	ND	ND	ND

ND	ND	ND	ND

ND	ND	ND	ND

ND	ND	ND	ND

ND	ND

ND	ND

0.093	ND

0.051	ND

ND= Non-Detect.  ND is <0.01 ppm for all commodities except hops, dried
cones.  ND for hops is <0.05 ppm

Figure I-1:

Figure I-2:

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  20

Dimethenamid-P	Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data	DPNum:
341886


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 29 (Monday, February 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6006-6007]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02777]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC18-52-000.
    Applicants: Colton Power L.P., Harbor Cogeneration Company, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under FPA Section 203
for the Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities, et al. of Colton
Power L.P., et al.
    Filed Date: 2/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180205-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: EC18-53-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.
    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of
Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.
    Filed Date: 2/6/18.
    Accession Number: 20180206-5076.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG18-44-000.
    Applicants: Carlsbad Energy Center LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 2/6/18.
    Accession Number: 20180206-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-802-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-02-05_SA 3096 Point
Beach Solar-ATC GIA (J505) to be effective 1/22/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180205-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-803-000.
    Applicants: EDF Trading North America, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised 2018 to be effective
2/6/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180205-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-804-000.
    Applicants: EDF Energy Services, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised 2018 to be effective
2/6/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180205-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-805-000.
    Applicants: EDF Industrial Power Services (CA), LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised 2018 to be effective
2/6/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180205-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-806-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-02-05_Attachment FF
Consolidation and True-Up Filing to be effective 12/6/2017.
    Filed Date: 2/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180205-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-807-000.
    Applicants: Pinal Central Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Pinal Central Energy Center,
LLC Application for Market-Based Rates to be effective 3/15/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180205-5157.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-808-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA SA
No. 4042; Queue No. Y3-109 to be effective 1/17/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180205-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-809-000.
    Applicants: FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.
    Description: Request of FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. for
Authorization to Make Wholesale Power Sales to its Affiliate, The
Potomac Edison Company.
    Filed Date: 2/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180205-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-810-000.
    Applicants: FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.
    Description: FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. Request for Authorization
to Make Wholesale Power Sales to Affiliate, West Penn Power.
    Filed Date: 2/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180205-5171.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-812-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Hampshire.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of letter agreement (Rate
Schedule No. 178) of Public Service Company of New Hampshire.
    Filed Date: 2/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20180205-5177.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-813-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: UAMPS Construction Agmt ?
St. George 4th Circuit Energization to be effective 4/9/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/6/18.
    Accession Number: 20180206-5075.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-814-000.
    Applicants: Carlsbad Energy Center LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Authorization and Request for Waivers to be effective 2/7/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/6/18.
    Accession Number: 20180206-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-815-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Tariff,
Attachment Q RE: Regulation Resource Credit to be effective 4/9/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/6/18.
    Accession Number: 20180206-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 6, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-02777 Filed 2-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


TO:	EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146

FROM:	Brenda Shine, EPA/SPPD

DATE:	August 21, 2007

SUBJECT:	Cooling Tower Risk analysis

I.	Purpose

The purpose of this memorandum is to document the potential risk impacts of cooling tower emissions reductions.

II.	Background

Following the approach described in the memorandum entitled, “Risk Estimates for Alternate Emissions Scenarios” an estimate of the risk reductions is provided for the proposed Cooling Tower Options 1 and 2.  Cooling tower Option 1 is a surrogate parameter monitoring leak detection and repair program and results in 29 TPY benzene reduction.  Option 2 requires monthly direct monitoring of cooling tower return for leaks, and the same repair requirements as Option 1 and results in 129 TPY benzene reduction.

III.	Emission Assessment

Emissions of benzene under the baseline case and a hypothetical alternative baseline are presented in the Table 1 below, along with reductions anticipated from the suite of options under consideration.

Table 1 -   Benzene Emissions Scenarios

	Benzene Emission Totals, TPY

	RTR Baseline	Alternate Baseline1	Cooling Tower Option 1	Cooling Tower Option 2

Cooling towers 	17	302	273	173

Fugitives	194	194	194	194

Tanks	200	200	200	200

Vessel Loading 	16	16	16	16

Marine Vessels 	13	13	13	13

Wastewater 	136	388	388	388

Other	142	142	142	142

Total	717	1255	1226	1126

1 Alternate baseline includes addition of hypothetical non inventoried  emissions from cooling towers and wastewater operations

Cooling tower option 1 reduces benzene by 29 TPY and Option 2 reduces benzene emissions by 129 TPY.

Table 2 -   Control Option Risk Estimates

 	RTR Baseline	Alternate Baseline	Cooling Tower Option 1	Cooling Tower Option 2

Benzene Emission Ratio 	1	1.75	1.71	1.57

MIR (in a million)	70	70	70	70

Number of people

> 1-in-100 million	0	0	0	0

> 1-in-10 million	         6,000 	10,500                   	10,300	9,300

> 1-in-1 million	      460,000 	    805,000       	790,000	720,000

Number of Facilities

> 1-in-100 million	0	0	0	0

> 1-in-10 million	21	41	41	36

> 1-in-1 million	96	108	108	104

Cancer Incidence2	0.04 - 0.09	0.07 – 0.16	0.07 – 0.16	0.06 – 0.14

	1 “Population Risks” and “Plant Risk Bin Estimates” are based on utilizing the high end of the reported cancer URE range for benzene.  These estimates may be as much as 30% lower when estimated using the lower end of the benzene URE range.

2 The cancer incidence range is based on extrapolation of 22 refineries as provided by the American Petroleum Institute as well as considering the reported cancer URE range for benzene.

Technical Memorandum –Cooling Tower Risk Analysis

August 21, 2007

Page   PAGE  2

 PAGE

Technical Memorandum

A-  PAGE  7


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 125 (Friday, June 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42359-42360]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13958]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0077; FRL-11115-01-OMS]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the
Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment
Request; Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) Program (EPA ICR Number 1596.11, OMB Control Number 2060-
0226) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a
proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through
August 31, 2023. Public comments were previously requested via the
Federal Register on January 24, 2023, during a 60-day comment period.
This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments.

DATES: Comments may be submitted on or before July 31, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0077, to EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Thompson, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Protection, (Mail Code
6205A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through August 31, 2023. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. Public comments were previously requested via the
Federal Register on January 24, 2023 during a 60-day comment period (88
FR 4177). This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. Supporting documents which explain in detail the information
that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for
this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in
person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is
202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket,
visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: This information collection is necessary to implement the
requirements of the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program
for evaluating and regulating substitutes for ozone-depleting
substances (ODS) being phased out under the stratospheric ozone
protection provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and globally under the
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Under CAA
section 612, EPA is authorized to identify and restrict the use of
substitutes for class I and class II ODS (listed in 40 CFR part 82,
subpart A, appendices A and B) where EPA determines other alternatives
are available or potentially available that reduce overall risk to
human health and the environment. Any producer of a new substitute must
submit a notice of intent to introduce a substitute into interstate
commerce 90 days prior to such introduction. The producer must also
provide EPA with information covering a wide range of health and
environmental factors. The EPA SNAP program then reviews proposed
substitutes based on established risk-assessment criteria and
procedures set forth in associated regulations. Results are published
in updated lists of acceptable and unacceptable substitutes sorted by
end-use categories.
    Responses to the collection of information are mandatory under
section 612 for anyone who sells or, in certain cases, uses substitutes
for an

ODS after April 18, 1994. Measures to protect confidentiality of
information collected under the SNAP program are based on EPA's
confidentiality regulations (40 CFR 2.201 et seq., or subpart B).
Submitters may designate all or portions of their forms or petitions as
confidential. EPA requires the submitters to substantiate their claim
of confidentiality. Under CAA section 114(c), emissions information may
not be claimed as confidential.
    Any substitute which is a new chemical must also be submitted to
the Agency under the New Chemicals (Premanufacture Notice) program
under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Furthermore,
alternatives that will be used as sterilants must be filed jointly with
EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs and with SNAP.
    Form Numbers: 1264-14; 1265-14.
    Respondents/affected entities: Manufacturers, importers,
formulators, and processors of substitutes for ODS.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR 82.176).
    Estimated number of respondents: 154 (per year).
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Total estimated burden: 4,855 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $444,249, which includes $22,912 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: The number of SNAP submissions each year
is expected to remain the same from the previous ICR, at an average of
15 per year during the next 3 years. In 2020 the Agency received 20 new
SNAP submissions, and in 2021 the Agency received 13 submissions. In
the first 10 months of 2022, the Agency received 6 submissions,
although multiple submissions applied for more than 5 end-uses. Many of
the recent SNAP submissions, and those anticipated over the next three
years, are for chemicals previously found acceptable for other SNAP
applications or for blends of alternatives already found acceptable.
The burden of developing supporting information for the majority of
these submissions is expected to decrease because it is easier to find
and review information for substitutes that have been reviewed
previously.
    There is an estimated 20% reduction in the number of respondents
responsible for recordkeeping for substitutes acceptable subject to use
conditions and narrowed use limits. This reduction is expected because
the increased availability of alternatives decreases the need for
industry to use alternatives previously listed as acceptable subject to
narrowed use limits.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-13958 Filed 6-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 18, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57253-57257]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22396]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0707; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-158-AD;
Amendment 39-17582; AD 2013-18-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell ASCa Inc. Emergency Locator
Transmitters Installed on Various Transport Category Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Honeywell ASCa Inc. emergency locator transmitters (ELTs) installed on
various transport category airplanes. This AD requires various one-time
general visual inspections of the ELT transmitter units (TUs), and
corrective actions if necessary. This AD was prompted by a fire on a
parked and unoccupied airplane; preliminary information indicated
combustion in the area of the ELT TU. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct discrepancies of the battery wiring installation inside the
TU, which could result in an electrical short and possible ignition
source.

DATES: This AD becomes effective October 3, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 3,
2013.
    We must receive comments on this AD by November 4, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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 Honeywell service information identified in this AD, contact
Honeywell ASCa Inc., Customer and Product Support, Customer Support
Operations, 3333 Unity Drive, Mississauga, ON, Canada L5L 3S6;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free U.S.A./Canada); telephone: 602-365-
3099 (international) email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet:
www.myaerospace.com. For Boeing service information that is specified
but not incorporated by reference in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-
65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax
206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review
copies of the 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; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information (MCAI), 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: Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer,
Avionics and Services Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2013-25, dated August 15, 2013 (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:

    Following an event where a fire broke out on a parked and
unoccupied aeroplane, the United Kingdom Air Accidents Investigation
Branch (AAIB) carried out an investigation to determine the cause of
the fire. Although the investigation is still ongoing, preliminary
information indicated that there was combustion in the area of the
ELT TU. Subsequent to the fire event, inspection of in-service ELT
TUs revealed battery wiring installation discrepancies inside the TU
that may result in an electrical short. The AAIB noted that in case
of an electrical short, the ELT battery could provide the energy for
an ignition.
    This [Canadian] AD is issued as a precautionary measure to
address the possibility of a fire due to wiring installation
discrepancies of either the ELT TU or the ELT Battery. Depending on
the outcome of the AAIB investigation, Transport Canada may revise
this [Canadian] AD or mandate additional corrective actions.

    This AD requires one-time general visual inspections of the ELT
TUs, and applicable corrective actions. Inspections include general
visual inspections for deformation (including bulges and gaps) in the
battery cover, damage (including cuts, breaks, cracks, and splits) to
the black protective cover of the battery, damage (including cuts,
breaks, and splits) to the battery wires and insulation, damage to the
TU battery connection wires (including flattening and exposed wires and
insulation), and discrepancies (i.e., the gasket shows signs of
deformation or indentation, or any blue pull-tab is trapped between the
cover and the TU) of the battery cover gasket. Corrective actions
include returning the battery/TU to Honeywell, and doing the ``return
to service'' actions (including marking/identifying the battery and TU;
repeating the cover inspection one time; and installing the new or
serviceable TU). You may obtain further information by examining the
MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Honeywell ASCa Inc. has issued Alert Service Bulletin 1152682-23-
A22, Revision 1, dated August 8, 2013. The actions described in this
service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This 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 issuing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Explanation of Compliance Time

    We acknowledge that a compliance time of 120 days is unusually long
for an immediately adopted rule. In this case, however, we have
determined that it is necessary to provide sufficient time for
operators to adequately prepare to meet the requirements of this AD.
Based on the large number of affected ELTs, we consider this compliance
time necessary to avoid unnecessarily disrupting flight schedules.
Although the Canadian AD mandates a 150-day compliance time, we have
determined that the 120-day compliance time required by this AD will
adequately address the identified unsafe condition. Therefore, a
compliance time of 120 days has been specified in order to provide
operators with sufficient time to accomplish the requirements of this
AD.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because
discrepancies of the battery wiring installation inside the TU could
result in an electrical short and possible ignition source. Therefore,
we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before
issuing this AD are impracticable and 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 we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0707; Directorate
Identifier 2013-NM-158-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may

amend this AD because of 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 AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 3,832 ELTs installed on transport
category airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to
comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections.........................  1 work-hour x $85 per                $0              $85         $325,720
                                       hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for additional required actions, as the time required to
accomplish those actions is specific to the airplane.

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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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):

2013-18-09 Honeywell ASCa Inc.: Amendment 39-17582. Docket No. FAA-
2013-0707; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-158-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective October 3, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Honeywell ASCs Inc. emergency locator
transmitters (ELTs) Model RESCU 406AF and 406AFN with transmitter
unit (TU) part numbers (P/Ns) 1152682-1, -2, and -3, installed on
transport category airplanes, certificated in any category, but not
limited to the airplanes identified in table 1 to paragraph (c) of
this AD.

      Table 1 to Paragraph (c) of This AD--Affected Airplane Models
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Manufacturer                        Airplane model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The Boeing Company............  (i) 717-200 airplanes.
                                    (ii) 727, 727C, 727-100, 727 -100C,
                                     727-200, and 727-200F series
                                     airplanes.
                                    (iii) 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -
                                     400, -500, -600, -700, -700C, -800,
                                     -900, and -900ER series airplanes.
                                    (iv) 747-100, -100B, -100B SUD, -
                                     200B, -200C, -200F, -300, -400, -
                                     400D, and -400F series airplanes;
                                     and 747SR, 747SP, 747-8F, and 747-8
                                     series airplanes.
                                    (v) 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -
                                     300 series airplanes.
                                    (vi) 767-200, -300, -300F, and -
                                     400ER series airplanes.
                                    (vii) 777-200, -200LR, -300, -300ER,
                                     and 777F series airplanes.
                                    (viii) 787-8 airplanes.
                                    (ix) MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes.
                                    (x) DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-
                                     82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87
                                     (MD-87) airplanes.
                                    (xi) MD-88 airplanes.
                                    (xii) MD-90-30 airplanes.

(2) Lockheed Martin Corporation/    382, 382B, 382E, 382F, 382G, and
 Lockheed Martin Aeronautics         382J airplanes.
 Company.
(3) Airbus........................  (i) A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-
                                     203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203
                                     airplanes.
                                    (ii) A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620,
                                     and B4-622 airplanes.
                                    (iii) A300 B4-605R and B4-622R
                                     airplanes.
                                    (iv) A300 F4-605R and F4-622R
                                     airplanes.
                                    (v) A300 C4-605R Variant F
                                     airplanes.
                                    (vi) A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -
                                     304, -322, -324, and -325
                                     airplanes.
                                    (vii) A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -
                                     231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
                                    (viii) A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -
                                     212, -213, -231, and -232
                                     airplanes.
                                    (ix) A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
                                    (x) A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and
                                     243 airplanes.
                                    (xi) A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -
                                     322, -323, -341, -342, and -343
                                     airplanes.
                                    (xii) A340-211, -212, and -213
                                     airplanes.
                                    (xiii) A340-311, -312, and -313
                                     airplanes.
                                    (xiv) A340-541 airplanes.
                                    (xv) A340-642 airplanes.
                                    (xvi) A380-800 series airplanes.
(4) ATR--GIE Avions de Transport    (i) ATR42-200, -300, -320, and -500
 R[eacute]gional.                    airplanes.
                                    (ii) ATR72-101, -201, -102, -202, -
                                     211, -212, and -212A airplanes.
(5) Dassault Aviation.............  FALCON 7X airplanes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 23,
Communications.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a fire on a parked and unoccupied
airplane; preliminary information indicated combustion in the area
of the ELT TU. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
discrepancies of the battery wiring installation inside the TU,
which could result in an electrical short and possible ignition
source.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Inspection

    For any ELT TU with any serial number identified in paragraph
1.A., ``Effectivity,'' including the serial numbers identified in
the Note in paragraph 1.A., of Honeywell Alert Service Bulletin
1152682-23-A22, Revision 1, dated August 8, 2013: Within 120 days
after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Remove the TU from the airplane.
    (2) Do one-time general visual inspections of the ELT TU, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Honeywell Alert
Service Bulletin 1152682-23-A22, Revision 1, dated August 8, 2013.

(h) TU/Battery Pack Return

    During any inspection required by this AD, if any discrepancy is
found that is unacceptable or exceeds limits as specified in
Honeywell Alert Service Bulletin 1152682-23-A22, Revision 1, dated
August 8, 2013: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1)
or (h)(2) of this AD, return the TU or battery pack, as applicable,
to Honeywell ASCa Inc., Customer and Product Support, Customer
Support Operations, 3333 Unity Drive, Mississauga, ON, Canada L5L
3S6; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free U.S.A./Canada); telephone:
602-365-3099 (international) email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: www.myaerospace.com.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Within 10 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Within 10 days after the effective date of this AD.

(i) Post-inspection Actions

    Before further flight after accomplishing the actions required
by paragraph (g) of this AD: Perform all applicable return to
service actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Honeywell Alert Service Bulletin 1152682-23-A22, Revision 1,
dated August 8, 2013. Install a TU that is identified in paragraph
3.F.(2) or 3.F.(3) of Honeywell Alert Service Bulletin 1152682-23-
A22, Revision 1, dated August 8, 2013.

(j) Parts Installation Limitations

    After installation or replacement of the TU as required by this
AD or as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD, no person may
install an ELT TU battery unless it is installed using a method
approved by either the Manager, New York ACO, FAA; or TCCA (or its
delegated agent).

(k) Acceptable Prior Actions for Certain Airplanes

    (1) For The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes identified in
AD 2013-15-07, Amendment 39-17523 (78 FR 45054, July 26, 2013):
Accomplishment of the applicable requirements of AD 2013-15-07
before the effective date of this AD is acceptable for compliance
with the requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the applicable actions
required by paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD, if those
actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using
Honeywell Alert Service Bulletin 1152682-23-A22, dated August 1,
2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (3) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD, if the applicable actions
specified in the service information identified in paragraphs
(k)(3)(i) through (k)(3)(vi) of this AD were performed before the
effective date of this AD using the applicable service information
identified in paragraphs (k)(3)(i) through (k)(3)(vi) of this AD.
This service information is not incorporated by reference in this
AD.
    (i) For The Boeing Company Model 717-200 airplanes: Boeing Multi
Operator Message MOM-MOM-13-0597-01B, dated July 28, 2013.
    (ii) For The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -
900, and -900ER series airplanes: Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-
MOM-13-0593-01B, dated July 28, 2013.
    (iii) For The Boeing Company Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F
series airplanes: Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-13-0594-01B,
dated July 28, 2013.
    (iv) For The Boeing Company Model 767 airplanes: Boeing Multi
Operator Message MOM-MOM-13-0595-01B, dated July 28, 2013.
    (v) For The Boeing Company Model 777 airplanes: Boeing Multi
Operator Message MOM-MOM-13-0596-01B, dated July 28, 2013.
    (vi) For The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes: Boeing Multi
Operator Message MOM-MOM-13-0570-01B, dated July 19, 2013; or Boeing
Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-13-0590-01B, dated July 26, 2013.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York 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 516-228-
7300; 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) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-25, dated August 15,
2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) For Boeing service information that is specified but not
incorporated by reference in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC
2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) Honeywell service information specified but not incorporated
by reference in this AD may be obtained at the addresses identified
in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD.

(n) 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) Honeywell Alert Service Bulletin 1152682-23-A22, Revision 1,
dated August 8, 2013.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Honeywell service information identified in this AD,
contact Honeywell ASCa Inc., Customer and Product Support, Customer
Support Operations, 3333 Unity Drive, Mississauga, ON, Canada L5L
3S6; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free U.S.A./Canada); telephone:
602-365-3099 (international) email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: www.myaerospace.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the 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>.
    (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 September 6, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-22396 Filed 9-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 31261]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10380]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-9773-000]

Loehr, Jason C.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on May 10, 2023, Jason C. Loehr submitted for
filing, application for authority to hold interlocking positions,
pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d(b)
and part 45.8 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part 45.8.
    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.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 31, 2023.

    Dated: May 10, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-10380 Filed 5-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P