[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43163-43165]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19449]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0524; Product Identifier 2016-NM-122-AD; Amendment
39-19034; AD 2017-19-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. This AD was prompted by
a determination that new or more restrictive maintenance requirements
and/or airworthiness limitations are necessary. This AD requires
revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or
airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 19, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 19,
2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box
2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov

by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0524.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0524; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 425-227-
1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Dassault Aviation
Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on June 6, 2017 (82 FR 25986) (``the NPRM'').
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2016-0128, dated June 23, 2016 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault
Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations and maintenance requirements for
the DA [Dassault Aviation] Falcon 900EX type design are included in
Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) chapter 5-40 and are approved by
the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). These instructions have
been identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness.
    Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an
unsafe condition.
    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2013-0051 [which corresponds to AD
2014-16-26, Amendment 39-17950 (79 FR 51077, August 27, 2014)
(``2014-16-26'')] to require accomplishment of the maintenance
tasks, and implementation of the airworthiness limitations, as
specified in DA Falcon 900EX AMM chapter 5-40 (DGT 113874) at
revision 12.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, DA issued revision 14 of Falcon
900EX AMM chapter 5-40 (DGT 113874) (hereafter referred to as ``the
ALS'' in this AD), which contains new or more restrictive
maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations. The ALS
introduces, among others, the following new tasks:

--Task 53-50-00-220-803 ``Detailed inspection of the baggage
compartment'';
--Task 53-50-00-220-807 ``Detailed inspection of the upper part of
frame 30.''

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2013-0051, which is superseded, and requires
accomplishment of the actions specified in the ALS.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0524.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Dassault Aviation has issued Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness
Limitations, Revision 14, dated November 2015, of the FALCON 900EX
Maintenance Manual. The service information describes procedures,
maintenance tasks, and airworthiness limitations specified in the
Airworthiness Limitations section of the AMM. This service information
is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to
it through their normal course of business or by the means identified
in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 70 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance or inspection program       1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85          $5,950
 revision.                               hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to
the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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.

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):

2017-19-04 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-19034; Docket No. FAA-
2017-0524; Product Identifier 2016-NM-122-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 19, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2014-16-26, Amendment 39-17950 (79 FR 51077,
August 27, 2014) (``AD 2014-16-26'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX
airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 1 through 96
inclusive, and serial numbers 98 through 119 inclusive, certificated
in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness
limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced
structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
information specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations,
Revision 14, dated November 2015, of the FALCON 900EX Maintenance
Manual. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions
specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 14,
dated November 2015, of the FALCON 900EX Maintenance Manual, is
within the applicable times specified in the maintenance manual, or
90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later,
except as provided by paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD.
    (1) The term ``LDG'' in the ``First Inspection'' column of any
table in the service information means total airplane landings.
    (2) The term ``FH'' in the ``First Inspection'' column of any
table in the service information means total flight hours.
    (3) The term ``FC'' in the ``First Inspection'' column of any
table in the service information means total flight cycles.
    (4) The term ``M'' in the ``First Inspection'' column of any
table in the service information means months.

(h) No Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may
be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

(i) Terminating Action

    Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD
terminates all the requirements of AD 2014-16-26.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0128, dated June 23, 2016, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2017-0524.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone
425-227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 14, dated
November 2015, of the FALCON 900EX Maintenance Manual.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000,
South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 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 August 31, 2017.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-19449 Filed 9-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 174)]
[Notices]
[Page 46585]
[DOCID:fr10se09-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD09-8-000]

Transmission Planning Processes Under Order No. 890; Notice
Announcing Panelists and Final Agenda for the September 10, 2009
Technical Conference in Atlanta, GA

September 2, 2009.
    On June 30, 2009, the Commission issued a notice (June 30 Notice)
scheduling staff technical conferences to examine the transmission
planning processes that are being conducted pursuant to Order No.
890.\1\ As stated in the June 30 Notice, these technical conferences
are intended to meet the Commission's commitment that its staff would
conduct an assessment of the Order No. 890 transmission planning
processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in
Transmission Service, Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,241,
order on reh'g, Order No. 890-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,261
(2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 890-B, 123 FERC ] 61,299 (2008),
order on reh'g, Order No. 890-C, 126 FERC ] 61,228 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 3, 2009, the Commission issued a supplemental notice
(August 3 Notice) with an agenda providing details on the topics that
will be discussed on the panels at each of the three conferences as
well as the topics panelists should be prepared to address. The August
3 Notice also reiterated that those wishing to participate as panelists
should submit a request form describing the topic(s) they wish to
address. In addition, those wishing to attend each conference were
asked to complete a registration form. The August 3 Notice stated that
a final notice with a list of the panelists for each conference would
be issued in advance of the conferences. On August 7, 2009, the
Commission issued an errata notice shortening the due date for all
requests from those wishing to participate as a panelist at any of the
three technical conferences to August 13, 2009.
    The attached agenda contains the panelists chosen for the September
10, 2009 Atlanta, Georgia technical conference to be held at: Sheraton
Gateway Hotel Atlanta Airport, 1900 Sullivan Road, Atlanta, GA 30337,
(770) 997-1100.
    Additional panelists may be added prior to the date of the
conference.
    If they have not already done so, those that plan to attend the
Atlanta conference should submit the registration form, located at:
https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/trans-09-10-form.asp.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Atlanta conference will address transmission planning
for entities located in the states represented in the Southeastern
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (SEARUC) and
entities located in the Southwest Power Pool footprint. In the event
a transmission provider is uncertain as to which technical
conference is the appropriate forum for discussion of its planning
process, such transmission providers should contact Commission staff
in advance to discuss the matter. Lastly, a comment date will be set
at a later date allowing for the filing of post-conference comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Panelists will provide introductory remarks to begin the discussion
of each topic identified in the August 3 notice. The purpose of the
introductory remarks is to introduce the topics of discussion, and
Staff intends to facilitate a constructive dialogue among all the
attendees involved in the planning process and will actively seek to
incorporate input from non-panelists and audience members into that
dialogue. We strongly encourage all attendees to actively participate
in the conference.
    For further information about this conference, please contact:

Zeny Magos, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202) 502-8244<EMAIL_ADDRESS>John Yakobitis, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202) 502-8512<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-21735 Filed 9-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 30413]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11501]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Sixth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 233 Addressing Human
Factors/Pilot Interface Issues for Avionics (SC-233)

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

ACTION: Notice of Sixth RTCA Special Committee 233 meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
Sixth RTCA Special Committee 233 meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held June 21-23, 2016 from 9:00 a.m.-5:00
p.m.

ADDRESS: The meeting will be held at FedEx World Headquarters
Conference Center, 3670 Hacks Cross Road, Building G (3rd Floor),
Memphis, TN 38125-8800. Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or
Karan Hofmann, Program Director, RTCA, Inc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202)
330-0680 or Marc Mannella, FedEx<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 233. The agenda
will include the following:

Tuesday, June 21, 2016
    1. Introduction, Upcoming PMC Dates and Deliverable
    2. Review of RTCA Consensus Process
    3. Review of TOR
    4. Review Notice 8110.98
    5. Current status of the document
    a. WG2 update
    b. WG3 update
    6. Leadership guidance to subcommittees

Wednesday, June 22, 2016
    1. Working Groups Break Out Sessions
    2. End of the Day Working Group Status Report Outs

Thursday, June 23, 2016
    1. Working Groups Break Out Session
    2. Leadership Team Wrap-up
    3. Discussion on Document Structure and Next Steps, Review Process
    4. Working Groups Assignment Status
    a. Subcommittee leader reports
    b. Follow-on actions identified for each work group
    5. Meeting Recap, Action Items, Key Dates

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be
provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain
information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a
written statement to the committee at any time. Please RSVP with Marc
Mannella if interested in participating in the FedEx Hub Tour held at
10:30 p.m.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 10, 2016.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, NextGen, Enterprise Support Services
Division, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-11501 Filed 5-13-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Wednesday, October 27, 2021 7:05 PM
To:
Philip Sebasco<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
Coke Ovens; Environmental Integrity Project.

Hi Phillip  -  I don't think there is any reason to meet. I believe I can answer your questions in an email.

 The timetable/schedule for both NESHAPs rulemakings
 We have a court-ordered deadline for the final rule for December 26,2022. We are currently working on the proposal and hope to get it out in late winter/early spring.
 The availability of and access to any comments and information received in the Information Collection Requests (ICRs) associated with both NESHAP rulemakings
 The test reports received in the ICR are located in the docket. We have a summary of the information collected in the questionnaire in a spreadsheet and are working on memoranda that will explain the information. These memos will be available at proposal. I will check and see if the spreadsheet is available to the public at this time and get back to you tomorrow.
 The emission data obtained from the ICR was used to create a model file for risk modeling purposes. This file can be accessed on the rule website at the link below:
 https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-pushing-quenching-and-battery-stacks-national-emission

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: Ali, Muntasir<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 4:26 PM
To: Philip Sebasco<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries (40 CFR 63, Subpart L) technology review and NESHAP for Coke Oven Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CCCCC) residual risk review Rulemakings

Hi Phillip:

I have cc'd Donna Lee in this email. She is the rule lead and can help direct you with the timetable/schedule with these rulemakings.

Monty

From: Philip Sebasco<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 4:19 PM
To: Ali, Muntasir<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries (40 CFR 63, Subpart L) technology review and NESHAP for Coke Oven Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CCCCC) residual risk review Rulemakings

Dear Mr. Ali,

My name is Philip Sebasco and I am a staff attorney with the Environmental Integrity Project. We are currently seeking information on the status of the rulemaking process for the NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart L) technology review and the NESHAP for Coke Oven Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CCCCC) residual risk review.

Specifically, we would like to schedule a call with the EPA lead for these rules to discuss the following:

 The timetable/schedule for both NESHAPs rulemakings; and
 The availability of and access to any comments and information received in the Information Collection Requests (ICRs) associated with both NESHAP rulemakings.

If you are not the EPA lead for these rules, we would greatly appreciate it if you can connect us with the correct staff or send us in the right direction.

Thank you!

Philip Sebasco (he/him/his)
Staff Attorney
Environmental Integrity Project
1000 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50-56]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32992]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1274; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-090-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    DGAC [Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile]
France AD 1992-106-132(B) * * * was issued to require a set of
inspection and modification tasks which addressed JAR/FAR [Joint
Aviation Regulation/Federal Aviation Regulation] 25-571 requirements
related to damage-tolerance and fatigue evaluation of structure. * *
*
* * * * *

The unsafe condition is reduced structural integrity of the wings. The
proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 17,
2011.

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 W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS--EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. 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 proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-1274;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-090-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2009-0057, dated March 13, 2009 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    DGAC [Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile]
France AD 1992-106-132(B) original

issue up to revision 7 was issued to require a set of inspection and
modification tasks which addressed JAR/FAR [Joint Aviation
Regulation/Federal Aviation Regulation] 25-571 requirements related
to damage-tolerance and fatigue evaluation of structure.
    Following the Extended Design Service Goal activities as part of
the Structure Task Group for the Airbus A310 program, EASA published
AD 2007-0053, which replaced DGAC France AD F-1992-106-132R7.
    Since the issuance of AD 2007-0053R1, the thresholds and the
intervals of Airbus Service Bulletins (SB) A310-57-2050 and A310-57-
2064 have been updated.
    Consequently, this new [EASA] AD takes over the requirements of
paragraphs 1.15 and 1.17 of EASA AD 2007-0053R1, which has been
revised accordingly * * * and requires the accomplishment of Airbus
SB A310-57-2048 at revision 01.

The unsafe condition is reduced structural integrity of the wings. The
required actions are as follows, depending on airplane configuration:
     Cold working of trellis boom drainage holes.
     Repetitive detailed or rotating probe inspections for
cracking in the drain holes on the lower skin panel in the center wing
box between frames 42 and 46 and corrective actions if necessary.
Corrective actions include repairing cracking and contacting the FAA or
EASA for repair and doing the repair.
     Repetitive eddy current inspections for cracking of the
upper corner angle fitting and the vertical tee fitting at left and
right frame 40, and corrective actions if necessary. Corrective actions
include repairing, replacing the internal angle fitting and contacting
the FAA or EASA for repair and doing the repair.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Other Relevant Rulemaking

    We are considering issuing three other NPRMs related to this NPRM:
     Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-092-AD. That NPRM proposes
to supersede AD 98-26-01, amendment 39-10942 (63 FR 69179, December 16,
1998), to continue to require certain actions specified in that AD.
However, that NPRM does not restate paragraphs (p) and (r) of AD 98-26-
01. Instead, certain requirements of paragraphs (p) and (r) of that AD
are included in this NPRM, Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-090-AD.
     Directorate Identifiers 2010-NM-089-AD and 2010-NM-091-AD.
Both of these NPRMs include the requirements of certain other
paragraphs of AD 98-26-01.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued the service bulletins listed in the table that
follows:

                                           Table--Service Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Service bulletin                        Revision                              Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-57- 01..........................  May 22, 2007.
 2048.
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-57- 02..........................  August 27, 2009.
 2050, including Appendix 01.
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-57- 02..........................  December 21, 2007.
 2064, including Appendix 1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 44 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 137 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $512,380, or $11,645 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2010-1274; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-
090-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by February 17, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222,
-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category,
all serial numbers.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57: Wings.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    DGAC [Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile]
France AD 1992-106-132(B) original issue up to revision 7 was issued
to require a set of inspection and modification tasks which
addressed JAR/FAR [Joint Aviation Regulation/Federal Aviation
Regulation] 25-571 requirements related to damage-tolerance and
fatigue evaluation of structure. * * *.
* * * * *
The unsafe condition is reduced structural integrity of the wings.

Compliance

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

Cold Working of Trellis Boom Drainage Holes

    (g) For Model A310-203, -204, -222, -304, -322 and -324
airplanes, except airplanes identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2),
and (g)(3) of this AD: Within the applicable time specified in Table
1 of this AD, cold work the trellis boom drainage holes, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A310-57-2048, Revision 01, dated May 22, 2007.
Certain compliance times specified in Table 1 of this AD are
applicable to short range use, average flight time (AFT) equal to or
less than 3.6 hours; or long range use, AFT exceeding 3.6 hours.

         Table 1--Compliance Times for Paragraph (g) of This AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Airplanes, as identified in   Compliance time (whichever occurs later)
  Airbus mandatory service
   bulletin A310-57-2048,
 revision 01, dated May 22,
            2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Configuration 01 airplanes..  Prior to the          Within 6 months
                               accumulation of       after the effective
                               31,800 total flight   date of this AD.
                               cycles or 63,600
                               total flight hours,
                               whichever occurs
                               first.
Configuration 02 airplanes..  Prior to the          Within 6 months
                               accumulation of       after the effective
                               40,000 total flight   date of this AD.
                               cycles or 80,000
                               total flight hours,
                               whichever occurs
                               first.
Configuration 03 short range  Prior to the          Within 6 months
 airplanes.                    accumulation of       after the effective
                               30,950 total flight   date of this AD.
                               cycles or 86,750
                               total flight hours,
                               whichever occurs
                               first.
Configuration 03 long range   Prior to the          Within 6 months
 airplanes.                    accumulation of       after the effective
                               24,100 total flight   date of this AD.
                               cycles or 120,600
                               total flight hours,
                               whichever occurs
                               first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Airplanes on which Airbus modification 06130 was done in
production.
    (2) Airplanes on which Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-
57-2048 was done in service.
    (3) Airplanes on which rework of cracked drain holes was done in
accordance with Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-57-2050.

Inspection of Trellis Boom Drainage Holes

    (h) For all airplanes: Within the applicable intervals specified
in Table 2 of this AD, perform a detailed or rotating probe
inspection for cracking in the drain holes on the lower skin panel
in the center wing box between frames 42 and 46, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A310-57-2050, Revision 02, dated August 27, 2009. Repeat the
inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed the applicable
times specified in Table 3 of this AD. Certain compliance times
specified in Tables 2 and 3 of this AD are applicable to short range
use, average flight time (AFT) equal to or less than 3.6 hours; or
long range use, AFT exceeding 3.6 hours.

         Table 2--Compliance Times for Paragraph (h) of This AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Airplanes, as identified in   Compliance time (whichever occurs later)
  Airbus mandatory service
   bulletin A310-57-2050,
  revision 02, dated August
          27, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Configuration 01 airplanes..  Prior to the          Within 1,000 flight
                               accumulation of       cycles or 2,000
                               17,800 total flight   flight hours,
                               cycles or 35,600      whichever occurs
                               total flight hours,   first, after the
                               whichever occurs      effective date of
                               first.                this AD.

 Airplanes, as identified in   Compliance time (whichever occurs later)
  Airbus mandatory service
   bulletin A310-57-2050,
  revision 02, dated August
          27, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Configuration 02 airplanes    Within 32,850 flight  Within 1,000 flight
 on which Airbus Mandatory     cycles or 65,700      cycles or 2,000
 Service Bulletin A310-57-     flight hours,         flight hours,
 2048 has been done within     whichever occurs      whichever occurs
 the ``recommended''           first, after          first, after the
 compliance times specified    accomplishing         effective date of
 in paragraph 1.E.(2),         Airbus Mandatory      this AD.
 ``Accomplishment              Service Bulletin
 Timescale,'' of Airbus        A310-57-2048.
 Mandatory Service Bulletin
 A310-57-2048, Revision 01,
 dated May 22, 2007.
Configuration 02 airplanes    Within 8,600 flight   Within 1,000 flight
 on which Airbus Mandatory     cycles or 17,250      cycles or 2,000
 Service Bulletin A310-57-     flight hours,         flight hours,
 2048 has not been done        whichever occurs      whichever occurs
 within the ``recommended''    first, after          first, after the
 compliance times specified    accomplishing the     effective date of
 in paragraph 1.E.(2),         detailed inspection   this AD.
 ``Accomplishment              specified in Airbus
 Timescale,'' of Airbus        Mandatory Service
 Mandatory Service Bulletin    Bulletin A310-57-
 A310-57-2048, Revision 01,    2048;
 dated May 22, 2007.          OR..................
                              Within 11,400 flight
                               cycles or 22,800
                               flight hours,
                               whichever occurs
                               first, after
                               accomplishing the
                               rotating probe
                               inspection
                               specified in Airbus
                               Mandatory Service
                               Bulletin A310-57-
                               2048.
Configuration 03 airplanes..  Prior to the          Within 1,000 flight
                               accumulation of       cycles or 2,000
                               22,300 total flight   flight hours,
                               cycles or 44,550      whichever occurs
                               total flight hours,   first, after the
                               whichever occurs      effective date of
                               first.                this AD.
Configuration 04 airplanes..  Prior to the          Within 1,000 flight
                               accumulation of       cycles or 2,000
                               41,550 total flight   flight hours,
                               cycles or 83,100      whichever occurs
                               total flight hours,   first, after the
                               whichever occurs      effective date of
                               first.                this AD.
Configuration 05 airplanes    Prior to the          Within 1,000 flight
 on which Airbus Mandatory     accumulation of       cycles or 2,000
 Service Bulletin A310-57-     40,000 total flight   flight hours,
 2048 has been done within     cycles or 80,000      whichever occurs
 the ``recommended''           total flight hours,   first, after the
 compliance times specified    whichever occurs      effective date of
 in paragraph 1.E.(2),         first.                this AD.
 ``Accomplishment
 Timescale,'' of Airbus
 Mandatory Service Bulletin
 A310-57-2048, Revision 01,
 dated May 22, 2007.
Configuration 05 airplanes    Within 10,600 flight  Within 1,000 flight
 on which Airbus Mandatory     cycles or 21,150      cycles or 2,000
 Service Bulletin A310-57-     flight hours,         flight hours,
 2048 has not been done        whichever occurs      whichever occurs
 within the ``recommended''    first, after          first, after the
 compliance times specified    accomplishing the     effective date of
 in paragraph 1.E.(2),         detailed inspection   this AD.
 ``Accomplishment              specified in Airbus
 Timescale,'' of Airbus        Mandatory Service
 Mandatory Service Bulletin    Bulletin A310-57-
 A310-57-2048, Revision 01,    2048;
 dated May 22, 2007.          OR..................
                              Within 13,900 flight
                               cycles or 27,800
                               flight hours,
                               whichever occurs
                               first, after
                               accomplishing the
                               rotating probe
                               inspection
                               specified in Airbus
                               Mandatory Service
                               Bulletin A310-57-
                               2048.
Configuration 06 short range  Prior to the          Within 1,000 flight
 airplanes.                    accumulation of       cycles or 2,800
                               17,250 total flight   flight hours,
                               cycles or 48,400      whichever occurs
                               total flight hours,   first, after the
                               whichever occurs      effective date of
                               first.                this AD.
Configuration 06 long range   Prior to the          Within 800 flight
 airplanes.                    accumulation of       cycles or 4,000
                               13,450 total flight   flight hours,
                               cycles or 67,250      whichever occurs
                               total flight hours,   first, after the
                               whichever occurs      effective date of
                               first.                this AD.
Configuration 07 short range  Prior to the          Within 1,000 flight
 airplanes.                    accumulation of       cycles or 2,800
                               32,150 total flight   flight hours,
                               cycles or 90,050      whichever occurs
                               total flight hours,   first, after the
                               whichever occurs      effective date of
                               first.                this AD.
Configuration 07 long range   Prior to the          Within 800 flight
 airplanes.                    accumulation of       cycles or 4,000
                               25,050 total flight   flight hours,
                               cycles or 125,150     whichever occurs
                               total flight hours,   first, after the
                               whichever occurs      effective date of
                               first.                this AD.
Configuration 08 short range  Prior to the          Within 1,000 flight
 airplanes on which Airbus     accumulation of       cycles or 2,800
 Mandatory Service Bulletin    30,950 total flight   flight hours,
 A310-57-2048 has been done    cycles or 86,750      whichever occurs
 within the ``recommended''    total flight hours,   first, after the
 compliance times specified    whichever occurs      effective date of
 in paragraph 1.E.(2),         first.                this AD.
 ``Accomplishment
 Timescale,'' of Airbus
 Mandatory Service Bulletin
 A310-57-2048, Revision 01,
 dated May 22, 2007.

 Airplanes, as identified in   Compliance time (whichever occurs later)
  Airbus mandatory service
   bulletin A310-57-2050,
  revision 02, dated August
          27, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Configuration 08 short range  Within 8,200 flight   Within 1,000 flight
 airplanes on which Airbus     cycles or 23,000      cycles or 2,800
 Mandatory Service Bulletin    flight hours,         flight hours,
 A310-57-2048 has not been     whichever occurs      whichever occurs
 done within the               first, after          first, after the
 ``recommended'' compliance    accomplishing the     effective date of
 times specified in            detailed inspection   this AD.
 paragraph 1.E.(2),            specified in Airbus
 ``Accomplishment              Mandatory Service
 Timescale,'' of Airbus        Bulletin A310-57-
 Mandatory Service Bulletin    2048;
 A310-57-2048, Revision 01,   OR..................
 dated May 22, 2007.          Within 10,800 flight
                               cycles or 30,300
                               flight hours,
                               whichever occurs
                               first, after
                               accomplishing the
                               rotating probe
                               inspection
                               specified in Airbus
                               Mandatory Service
                               Bulletin A310-57-
                               2048.
Configuration 08 long range   Prior to the          Within 800 flight
 airplanes on which Airbus     accumulation of       cycles or 4,000
 Mandatory Service Bulletin    24,100 total flight   flight hours,
 A310-57-2048 has been done    cycles or 120,600     whichever occurs
 within the ``recommended''    total flight hours,   first, after the
 compliance times specified    whichever occurs      effective date of
 in paragraph 1.E.(2),         first.                this AD.
 ``Accomplishment
 Timescale,'' of Airbus
 Mandatory Service Bulletin
 A310-57-2048, Revision 01,
 dated May 22, 2007.
Configuration 08 long range   Within 6,400 flight   Within 800 flight
 airplanes on which Airbus     cycles or 31,950      cycles or 4,000
 Mandatory Service Bulletin    flight hours,         flight hours,
 A310-57-2048 has not been     whichever occurs      whichever occurs
 done within the               first, after          first, after the
 ``recommended'' compliance    accomplishing the     effective date of
 times specified in            detailed inspection   this AD.
 paragraph 1.E.(2),            specified in Airbus
 ``Accomplishment              Mandatory Service
 Timescale,'' of Airbus        Bulletin A310-57-
 Mandatory Service Bulletin    2048;
 A310-57-2048, Revision 01,   OR..................
 dated May 22, 2007.          Within 8,400 flight
                               cycles or 42,150
                               flight hours,
                               whichever occurs
                               first, after
                               accomplishing the
                               rotating probe
                               inspection
                               specified in Airbus
                               Mandatory Service
                               Bulletin A310-57-
                               2048.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Table 3--Repetitive Intervals for Paragraph (h) of This AD, Depending on Most Recent Inspection Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Airplanes, as identified in Airbus       Type of inspection done
mandatory service bulletin A310-57-2050,       during most recent         Repetitive interval  (not to exceed)
   revision 02, dated August 27, 2009              inspection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Configuration 01 and 02 airplanes.......  Detailed inspection........  8,600 flight cycles or 17,250 flight
                                                                        hours, whichever occurs first.
                                          Rotating probe inspection..  11,400 flight cycles or 22,800 flight
                                                                        hours, whichever occurs first.
Configurations 03, 04, and 05 airplanes.  Detailed inspection........  10,600 flight cycles or 21,150 flight
                                                                        hours, whichever occurs first.
                                          Rotating probe inspection..  13,900 flight cycles or 27,800 flight
                                                                        hours, whichever occurs first.
Configurations 06, 07, and 08 short       Detailed inspection........  8,200 flight cycles or 23,000 flight
 range airplanes.                                                       hours, whichever occurs first.
                                          Rotating probe inspection..  10,800 flight cycles or 30,300 flight
                                                                        hours, whichever occurs first.
Configurations 06, 07, and 08 long range  Detailed inspection........  6,400 flight cycles or 31,950 flight
 airplanes.                                                             hours, whichever occurs first.
                                          Rotating probe inspection..  8,400 flight cycles or 42,150 flight
                                                                        hours, whichever occurs first.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corrective Actions for Paragraph (h) of This AD

    (i) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (h) of this AD, before further flight, do all applicable
corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-57-2050,
Revision 02, dated August 27, 2009; except where the service
bulletin specifies to contact Airbus, before further flight, repair
in accordance with a method approved by either the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
or EASA (or its delegated agent).

Inspection of Fuselage Frame 40 Upper Corner Fitting

    (j) For all airplanes: Within the applicable time specified in
Table 4 of this AD, perform an eddy current inspection for cracking
of the upper corner fitting at left and right frame 40, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A310-57-2064, Revision 02, dated December 21, 2007.
Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed the
applicable times specified in Table 5 of this AD. Certain compliance
times specified in Tables 4 and 5 of this AD are applicable to short
range use, average flight time (AFT) equal to or less than 3.23
hours; or long range use, AFT exceeding 3.23 hours.

         Table 4--Compliance Times for Paragraph (j) of This AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airplane configurations        Compliance time (whichever occurs later)
 identified in Airbus
 mandatory service bulletin
 A310-57-2064, revision 02,
 dated December 21, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model A310-203, -204, -221,   Prior to the          Within 1,300 flight
 and -222 airplanes            accumulation of       cycles or 2,700
 identified as Configuration   15,100 total flight   flight hours,
 01.                           cycles or 30,300      whichever occurs
                               total flight hours,   first, after the
                               whichever occurs      effective date of
                               first.                this AD.
Model A310-203, -204, -221,   Prior to the          Within 1,300 flight
 and -222 airplanes            accumulation of       cycles or 2,700
 identified as                 21,400 total flight   flight hours,
 Configurations 02 and 03.     cycles or 42,800      whichever occurs
                               total flight hours,   first, after the
                               whichever occurs      effective date of
                               first.                this AD.
Model A310-304, -322, -324,   Prior to the          Within 600 flight
 and -325 short range          accumulation of       cycles or 1,800
 airplanes identified as       14,700 total flight   flight hours,
 Configuration 01.             cycles or 41,300      whichever occurs
                               total flight hours,   first, after the
                               whichever occurs      effective date of
                               first.                this AD.
Model A310-304, -322, -324,   Prior to the          Within 600 flight
 and -325 short range          accumulation of       cycles or 1,800
 airplanes identified as       20,700 total flight   flight hours,
 Configurations 02 and 03.     cycles or 58,300      whichever occurs
                               total flight hours,   first, after the
                               whichever occurs      effective date of
                               first.                this AD.
Model A310-304, -322, -324,   Prior to the          Within 500 flight
 and -325 long range           accumulation of       cycles or 2,650
 airplanes identified as       12,800 total flight   flight hours,
 Configuration 01.             cycles or 64,000      whichever occurs
                               total flight hours,   first, after the
                               whichever occurs      effective date of
                               first.                this AD.
Model A310-304, -322, -324,   Prior to the          Within 500 flight
 and -325 long range           accumulation of       cycles or 2,650
 airplanes identified as       18,000 total flight   flight hours,
 Configurations 02 and 03.     cycles or 90,400      whichever occurs
                               total flight hours,   first, after the
                               whichever occurs      effective date of
                               first.                this AD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Table 5--Repetitive Intervals for Paragraph (j) of This AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Repetitive interval  (not to
             Airplanes                             exceed)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model A310-203, -204, -221, and -    8,750 flight cycles or 17,550
 222 airplanes.                       flight hours, whichever occurs
                                      first.
Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -    5,800 flight cycles or 16,300
 325 short range airplanes.           flight hours, whichever occurs
                                      first.
Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -    4,800 flight cycles or 24,050
 325 long range airplanes.            flight hours, whichever occurs
                                      first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corrective Actions for Paragraph (h) of This AD

    (k) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (j) of this
AD, any crack is found, prior to further flight, do all applicable
corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-57-2064,
Revision 02, dated December 21, 2007; except where the service
bulletin specifies to contact Airbus, before further flight, repair
in accordance with a method approved by either the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
or EASA (or its delegated agent).

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (l) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2048, dated April
23, 1990, are considered acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding action specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (m) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2050, dated April
23, 1990; or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-57-2050,
Revision 01, dated May 22, 2007; are considered acceptable for
compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraphs
(h) and (i) of this AD.
    (n) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2064, dated August
24, 1995; or Revision 01, dated January 5, 2001; are acceptable for
compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraphs
(j) and (k) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No Differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (o) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Dan
Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal
avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal
inspector, your local Flight Standards 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.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (p) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2009-0057, dated
March 13, 2009, and the service bulletins listed in Table 6 of this
AD, for related information.

                                           Table 6--Service Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Service bulletin                        Revision                              Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-57- 01..........................  May 22, 2007.
 2048.
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A31-57-  02..........................  August 27, 2009.
 2050.

Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-57- 02..........................  December 21, 2007.
 2064.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Renton, Washington on December 17, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-32992 Filed 12-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


<!DOCTYPE html
     PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
     "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

	<title>Minutes of the June 10, 2003 Exposure Modeling Public Meeting | Pesticides | US EPA</title>
	<meta name="DC.description" content="pesticide, pesticides,Access to and information regarding simulation models to predict pesticide concentrations in surface and ground water for use in both human health and aquatic ecological exposure assessments.  Exposure modeling public meeting products." />
	<meta name="keywords" content="EPA,Environmental Protection Agency, OPP, pesticides, pesticide, office of pesticide programs, scigrow, geneec, first, water models, exposure modeling public meeting" />

	<meta name="DC.title" content="Minutes of the June 10, 2003 Exposure Modeling Public Meeting | Pesticides | US EPA" />
	<meta name="DC.subject" content="EPA,Environmental Protection Agency, OPP, pesticides, pesticide, office of pesticide programs, scigrow, geneec, first, water models, exposure modeling public meeting" />
	<meta name="DC.type" content="" />

	<meta name="DC.date.modified" content="2007-06-18" />
	<meta name="DC.date.created" content="" />
	<meta name="DC.date.reviewed" content="" />

	<meta name="DC.language" content="en" />
	<meta name="DC.Creator" content="US EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs" />
	<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
	<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
	<link rel="schema.DC" href="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" />
	<link rel="meta" href="http://www.epa.gov/labels.rdf" type="application/rdf+xml" title="ICRA labels" />

	<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="print" href="http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/s/print.css" />

Jump to main content.

Pesticides: Science and Policy

	<form id="EPAsearch" method="get" action="http://nlquery.epa.gov/epasearch/epasearch">

Recent Additions | Contact Us
			Search:
			<input type="hidden" name="fld" value="gov/pesticides/science,oppfead1/trac/science,oppfead1/carat,oppfead1/cb/ppdc/,gov/scipoly/sap,oppad001,pesticides/antimicrobials,oppbppd1/biopesticides/regtools/guidelines,oppbead1/methods,oppbead1/labs,oppefed1/models,opptsfrs/home,gov/scipoly/oscpendo,gov/PR_Notices" />
			<input type="hidden" name="areaname" value="Pesticides: Science and Policy" />
			<input type="hidden" name="areacontacts" value="http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/contacts.htm" />

			<input type="hidden" name="areasearchurl" value="http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/search.htm" />

			<input type="hidden" name="result_template" value="epafiles_default.xsl" />
 			<input type="hidden" name="filter" value="sample2filt.hts" />
			<input name="typeofsearch" id="EPAall" type="radio" value="epa"/>All EPA
			<input name="typeofsearch" id="Areaall" type="radio" value="area" checked="checked" />This Area
			<input name="querytext" id="searchbox" value="" />
		  <input name="submit" id="searchbutton" type="submit" value="Go" />

	</form>

You are here: EPA Home

Pesticides

Science & Policy

Models
            and Databases

Water Models

Exposure 		Modeling Public Meeting (EMPM) Information and Products

Minutes of the June 10, 2003 Exposure Modeling Public Meeting

Minutes of the June 10, 2003 Exposure Modeling Public Meeting

CM2

Rm 1126

1921 Jeff. Davis Hwy.

Arlington, VA

On this Page

Attendees

Welcome and Introduction

Old Action Items

Brief Updates

Major Topic Presentations

Summary of New Action Items

Attendees

Name	Association

Michael Barrett 	OPP/EFED

Dirk Young 		OPP/EFED

Betsy Behl		OPP/EFED

William Eckel 		OPP/EFED

Ron Parker 		OPP/EFED

Alex Clem 		OPP/EFED

Mark Corbin		OPP/EFED

Jim Lin 			OPP/EFED

Lucy Shanaman		OPP/EFED

Jerry Hannan		OPP/EFED

Kevin Costello		OPP/EFED

Faruque Khan		OPP/EFED

Thuy Nguyen		OPP/EFED

Stephanie Syslo		OPP/EFED

Subijoy Dutta		OPP/EFED

Gerry Laniak		National Exposure Research Lab. (NERL)/ EPA-ORD-Athens

Jim Carleton		OPP/EFED

Nelson Thurman		OPP/EFED

Piyush Singh		DuPont

Sally Leva		DuPont

Neil Shah			Inside washington  publishers

Mary Nett 		WQC

Nancy Ragsdale 		USDA/ARS

Don Wauchope		USDA/ARS

Russell Jones 		Bayer

Wenlin Chen 		Syngenta

Paul Hendley 		Syngenta

T.S. Ramanarayan  	Bayer

Scott Jackson 		BASF

Clauide Beigel		BASF

Elise McCoy 		FMC

Uwe Wanner 		Crompton

Louis Suarez 		NERL/Athens

Larry Burns		NERL/Athens

Mark Cheplick 		Waterborne

Andrew Hewitt		Stewart Ag/SDTF

Andy Newcombe		Levine-Fricke

Amanda Harrah		Toxcel LLC

Dave Valcore		DowAgro

Note:  OPP/EFED = Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate & Effects Division

Top of page

Welcome and Introductions

Michael Barrrett welcomed the attendees and introduced the speakers

Top of page

Old action items

Mary Nett to send protocol details to Michael Barrett who will post on the list server for further debate and comment.-  still needs to be put on the web

Don Wauchope to send his presentation on the USDA/ARS OPP/EFED workshop (focus
on developing credible mitigation measures) ASAP - Done

Mark Cheplick to post details of code changes in PRZM on this and slides showing impact of changes on the list server. - Not done yet.

EFED will complete QA for PE3.pl and PE4.pl and post on Web site - In progress.

Norm Birchfield will respond to revised language proposed by SDTF. This will also be an agenda item at the next meeting - Both done.

All are asked to review this version of EXAMINER before next meeting. - EXAMINER is available with EXPRESS.

The developers want review from the regulatory community on the alpha version of PLUS and decide if it is a worthwhile project for further development. The EFED Water Quality Tech Team will work with Scott Jackson to arrange a presentation at EPA to facilitate further discussion and review. - Both done.

Michael Barrett to send sample templates to registrants and post report update on the Web.- see below - To be done soon.

Mark Carroll to send his overheads to Mike Barrett for posting on the list server - Done.

Top of page

Brief Updates

European Union Modeling Activities (Russell Jones)

Russell Jones covered the progress of the FOCUS kinetics, Landscape and mitigation and air residues issues - work is ongoing.  There was interest in the goals of the Landscape and mitigation team and Russell Jones pointed out that probably this group will really be a first step.

ACTION: Add to minutes a reference to Piacenza journal with details of the conference proceedings. Here it is:

A. A. M. Del Re, E. Capri, L Padovani, M. Trevisan (eds).  Pesticide in Air, Plant, Soil & Water System:  Proceedings of the XII Symposium Pesticide Chemistry, June 4-6, 2003 Piacenza Italia.  La Goliardica Pavese..

Rama mentioned the impending birth of EUFRAM and the involvement of Donna Randall from EFED.  The purpose of this European group is to follow up on dealing with the issues generated by probabilistic approaches to risk assessment.

USDA/ARS pesticide properties database (Don Wauchope)

Don Wauchope has got together with NRCS Soil/Pesticide Interaction Screening Procedure
(SPISP) database (from Joe Bagdon; SPISP is the first tier in the Natural Resources Conservation Service's method for assessing water quality related pesticide risks) and USDA-ARS and is combining the two databases.

The SPISP database only has currently registered compounds - the ARS database has many older compounds.  Don Wauchope says the ARS database will continue to use the "selected values" approach which relies on best scientific judgment / intuition to select the most representative values for a pesticide.  He noted that no matter what method is used, there will always be questions on how data was selected.  The new database is being aimed at an WHO need for third world countries (presumably for human risk assessment results).

SPISP is based on GUS ratio (Reference: Gustafson, D.I. 1989. Groundwater Ubiquity Score: A simple method for assessing pesticide leachability. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.  Volume 8, pp. 339-357.) and runs with the USDA model GLEAMS.  The SPISP project needs to make the calculations available.  Don Wauchope will be getting the details of the SPISP calculations so he can calculate for some of the compounds without this data.  The database will be available via the Tifton web site.

ACTION - Don will circulate an Excel spreadsheet when available - aiming for the end of August.

Comments on USDA and EPA pesticide fate properties databases:

This ARS database will be parallel with the EPA database process.  The latter is scheduled for fall/early winter for internal use and will not be publicly available till later.  The EPA database is currently solely based on submitted data.

ACTION - May add a progress update on the EPA fate database to the September agenda.

PRZM/EXAMS model (Luis Suarez)

A fix has apparently been completed for the temperature version in PRZM; All the necessary paperwork to release version 3.125 official is in place.  The only other real difference from he one most people have will be that this is NOT a beta.

The same temperature bug was NOT present in 3.21 version.

Rice Modeling (Jim Breithaupt)

This project has been approved for Tier 1 implementation and Dave Jones is currently working on it.  It will include first order decay and sorption in a way analogous to GENEEC.  There will be no receiving water body.  Currently  the values calculated in EFED's REDs (reregistration eligibility documents) are done by an "interim model" that is more conservative than the final Tier 1 model will be.

ACTION - Dave Jones and Jim Breithaupt will update on the status of development of the rice exposure modeling tools at the next meeting

WARP model (Ron Parker)

Not too much to report this time.  Regular team phone conferences will restart soon. The pesticide watershed usage group has made a lot of progress.  Difficulties with delineation of the watersheds is holding up progress on evaluating drinking water exposure. Watershed area is one of the key variables in WARP. The QA/QC process is formidable because ultimately it must be approached almost on a site-by-site basis. At least three states have generated their own boundaries. One option would be to compare our boundaries with those developed by these states. USGS are about to release a national coverage of  Dunne overland flow values. It will be distributed as soon as it is complete and checked. Once the watershed boundary data are available, will have both the atrazine and the multi-chemical models to use.  Project timing is now dependent on the plan for delineation of the watershed.

ACTION - Ron Parker will check on potential availability of watershed data and provide feedback over the listserver.  There is a homeland Security issue for release of watershed delineation information, this is an issue being handled by the Office of Water. Some industry EMWG members indicated that they would still like to look at a spreadsheet of Community Water System characteristics even if the actual locations cannot be revealed.

ACTION - It would be possible to present approaches for develop estimates of daily values at the next meeting. There are two approaches for adding daily values to the WARP percentiles and one for filling in daily values between monitored values.

ACTION - Michael Barrett to add to agenda for next time (and invite Charlie Crawford and other appropriate speakers for these topics)

Spray Drift Task Force progress (Paul Hendley) and AgDrift EPA Review (Norm Birchfield is out on paternity leave)

Paul presented a review of SDTF progress towards trying to release the AgDRIFT® model.

Several options exist; the SDTF technical group has recommended making the whole thing
available.  Norm Birchfield has responded for EFED to the SDTF suggesting a way that might help them feel more inclined to open access to AgDRIFT® - SDTF is pleased with Norm' suggestion.

An SDTF meeting tomorrow will decide from several options and try to change bylaws to
simplify release of the model.  The key point is that there is a terminology difference between Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA; i.e., OPP) risk assessment and AgDRIFT® Tiering structures.  AgDRIFT® tier 1 encompasses OPP tier 1 and 2.  To cover OPP Tier 3, only the MAA module needs to be added from AgDRIFT® tier 2.  The rest of AgDRIFT® Tier 3 covers very sophisticated Ag engineering issues that are probably too complex for current risk mitigation options.

ACTION - Paul Hendley will circulate the outcome of the SDTF meeting on June 11 via the list server.

EXAMINER (Mark Cheplick)

EXAMINER has been attached to the latest version of EXPRESS but can be run independently or as part of EXPRESS.

ACTION - Ron will hand out copies of EXPRESS instructions later and all will evaluate.

ACTION - The instructions for accessing EXPRESS should be made available and a note sent around on the list server on access. (Note: EPA may not be able to put information on website because EXPRESS is not at the current time an approved regulatory model / tool for OPP - a formal QA / QC process would be needed before this can happen.)

EXPRESS Shell Update (Ron Parker)

EFED will be developing an implementation plan for EXPRESS.  ORD will be doing the
hardware QA/QC.  EPA will evaluate the QA/QC performance against the scenarios - comparing shell versus stand alone model runs.

The CURRENT POLICY is to run evaluations using PE4.pl which has been QA/QC'd.  After
EXPRESS has been QA/QC'd, this policy will probably change.  At that point the tier 2 shell may replace GENEEC

ACTION - EFED to check why PE4.pl has not yet been made available on the website.

PLUS (Scott Jackson)

A presentation was made at OPP, this was a very well attended meeting.  Mark has recently fixed several of the known bugs.  He has added a revised aquifer code that apparently incorporates comments from the EPA.  EFED scientists are reviewing t he FIFRA Environmental Modeling Validation Taskforce (FEMVTF) papers - only two of the full set are key - the literature review (Russell Jones) and the results from leaching simulations (Mark Russell).  EFED scientists are examining what would be desired in a conceptual model for Tier 2 GW exposure model for risk assessment.

ACTION - EFED will add an agenda item to discuss Tier 2 GW needs and conceptual model to September meeting.

It was suggested that it would be useful to have a presentation of the soils types/setting where PRZM seems to work better and why (and whether there are any other viable alternative models for the other soils) at the same meeting.

ACTION - Russell Jones offered to coordinate - EFED to discuss and consider adding to the Agenda for the September EMWG meeting.

CARES (Paul Hendley)

A presentation of the current status of and capabilities of the CARES (Cumulative and Aggregate Risk Evaluation System) model was made at OPP following the PLUS presentation on May 29, 2003.  Paul Hendley thanked EFED for the opportunity for the chance to discuss these issues - the key things for the EMWG group to consider are the details of what is needed to cost effectively address daily aspects of dietary water /residue intake.

Drinking Water Exposure Estimates for Dietary Risk (Kevin Costello)

HED (Health Effects Division) wants to add a tier to their DEEM (Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model) runs.  The goal is to implement exposure estimates of the distribution of daily water concentrations of pesticides.  Implementation team has been in place since February.  The team is currently evaluating options for moving from single values to distributions - and presenting guidance to EFED scientists on what factors to consider when evaluating issues while making sure that adequate conservatism is maintained.

Some issues to address include:

Need to look at peak shapes, return frequencies and many other factors

Not well defined how EPA will move from DWLOC single points to probabilistic distributions

Some in HED are doing a similar exercise on dietary and residential.

With time HED will be able to move from DWLOC type tier and use probabilistic approaches more routinely.  Risk managers, EFED, HED and others will all need to be involved in blending the various components and probabilities.  Work on regional assessments will come later.

Russell Jones pointed out the need for a reduced workload option to avoid doing too much work on water issues when water is not the dominant variable.  Kevin Costello felt that since the HED folks will have to be looking at DEEM anyway, the addition of the water component may not be a huge workload issue.

EFED Water Quality Projects (Betsy Behl)

Several projects mentioned at last meeting have been approved:

Rice tier 1

QA/QC model reviews

Scenario public comment evaluation

GW model evaluation

Regional PCA evaluation to replace national PCA values

Progress will be made over the next three months

ACTION - Update on EFED water quality projects at the next meeting.

PGW Database (Michael Barrett)

Database fields have been linked to model needs but data entry model templates have not yet been sent out - these will be available before the next meeting.

ACTION - Discuss formatting of Prospective Ground Water Study templates next meeting.

EFED Current Issues in Env. Fate for Modeling (Mark Corbin)

EFED pesticide environmental fate properties database under way.

Harmonization of EFED guidelines with OECD guidance is being worked on.

Field soil dissipation - will need a workshop to follow up on 2002 workshop -  this will help decide what agenda will be appropriate for an ACS symposium in Spring 2004 in Anaheim.

ACTION - Don Wauchope to post proposal for a symposium on field soil dissipation at the ACS meeting in Spring 2004.

Half life calculation policy - first order calculation is necessary as an initial step because of the needs of existing models.  The policy will cover data from lab and field studies - aimed at ensuring consistency between reviewers and between reviewers and contractors.

Questions:

Does it address correlated data in order to do QA and how to evaluate the results?  Mark reported that the method for dealing with errors in the data is already covered.

Does this link to the FOCUS policy under development?  ·	No it is independent - but at the initial, very simple level should not be in conflict.

ACTION - useful to add a discussion of half-life / fate property inputs for pesticide exposure models as a routine short subject for EMWG meetings.

Scenario Public comment evaluation (Ronald Parker)

Ron Parker is now leading this project which is separate from the evaluation of PLUS.

Top of page

MAJOR TOPIC PRESENTATIONS

A Rapid Laboratory Method for Studying Synergism. - Jerry Hannan (Work
done at  Navy Research Lab - Synergism at EPA Beltsville Lab)

The growth rate of a microorganism culture, minute-by-minute, was determined by monitoring the CO2 content of an air stream that has passed through the culture at a constant rate.  Any change in the growth rate caused by the addition of a toxicant is detectable in a matter of minutes. Examples investigated were the toxicity of stainless steel alloy rods, and herbicides including triazines and sulfonylureas.  These studies were based on the alga Chlorella pyrenoidosa sorokiniana but any rapidly growing microorganism (e.g. yeast) is worth considering in this regard.

Looked at inhibition of CO2 uptake/evolution in algae by SU's and Atrazine.

Atrazine switches off CO2 uptake and results in CO2 evolution

Sensitivity was exquisite (near pptw level) an nearly as low for atrazine.

Once the test species is in a linear phase the packed cell volume does not matter.

One could do a test, for example, by washing a treated part of the crop in the algal broth.

ACTION:  All are recommended to pass the information on the algal inhibtion technology to others they work with who might be interested in herbicide and synergism screens.

ACTION:  Jerry to provide his synergism talk to be put on the web site.

FAO (UN Food and Agricultural Organization) Pesticide Eco-Evaluation
Materials for Developing Countries - Ronald Parker

This project is designed to overcome practical constraints associated with pesticide
evaluation/registration in developing countries.

The proposed tools involve comparisons between a compound which is being evaluated and a reference or benchmark compound or compounds.

Originally the FAO tools were based on existing EFED models.

A number of recommended reference chemicals will be provided but a local regulator can add in additional reference compounds relevant to their country's situation.

Written guidance is currently under development.

No examples are yet available but the Field & External Affairs Division of OPP is currently recruiting staff people to work in this project. Work could begin within a month.

Users of the relative approach must be aware that this method yields a relative rather than an absolute measure of risk. If the evaluated chemical is compared to a chemical for which no information is available, no new information will be learned about the evaluated chemical.

ACTION: Dr. Parker will update EMWG on progress of the FAO comparative model at the next meeting

Update on Pesticide Usage Estimation Procedures to Support Interpretation
of Monitoring Data - Gail Thelin

This project compares National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) data with information from CA DPR's PUR database, NASS data and information received from industry - processing has been done by Pesticide Use Technical team (PUTT)

Agreement was generally fair to good

What were the absolute differences between estimates?? These have not been examined in this way

ACTION: PUTT to send out specific requests for data from 90 watersheds for specific active ingredients to manufacturers

ACTION: Industry to supply sales data ASAP - this is now limiting on wrapping this program up

Gail plans to re-express the differences between data set outputs in terms of absolute values.

Software Integrating Frameworks for Pesticide Models - Gerry Laniak

FRAMES 3MRA Tool to identify common threads within multi-media approaches to
environmental, human and ecological exposure and associated risk assessments

Example with multiple dimensions into an integrated modeling system - includes modular
approach to combine 17 different concepts.

Uses a Site-based strategy - farms, streams, ecosystems species...

Tiered approach - if no site data use national database

Selects 200 samples across all sites - developed site based data set - heavily into GIS operation used data from all HW sites

Links Ecoregions to Hazardous waste sites

Essence of system includes:

Science based models

Large scale environmental databases

User interfaces

GIS based data access

API's for maintaining data within modeling system

Data analysis and visualization tools

Distributed computing

Most of the elements above are infrastructure issues and could be handled by a general system - that is what FRAMES is above

Advantages of this process - basically lets concentrate on the science and leave the modeling detail to a system.

Everything based on dictionaries and metadata framework

Lots of effort has gone into dictionary editors and conversion editors

There is an Interagency memorandum of understanding (MOU) on multi-media Modeling:
statement of purpose

Seven agencies are collaborating

Technology group is looking at GIS linkages, execution management...

BASINS is an example - looking for a generic tool

Found that this technology leads to science integration and is best done on the back of specific models.

It takes perhaps six months to get a "new model" incorporated.

This is a good tool for pulling out GIS datasets to drive a model.

ACTION:  Gerry to make his slides available via the web

PRZM/EXAMS quality control issues update - Thuy Nguyen

Details of the QA/QC procedure adopted for the PE4.pl model (a user shell that runs PRZM and EXAMS for aquatic exposure assessments) were presented.

PE4.pl uses the EXAMS model NOT ANEX.

Code modifications of PE3.PL  have been conducted to ensure correct reporting of instantaneous concentrations, to incorporate temperature data into EXAMS simulations, and to correct stream flow conditions for the standard pond and index reservoir.

Relatively small differences (average of 4.4%) occurred in the results between runs with the DOS versions of the models, PE3.PL, and PE4.PL.   There was strong evidence that these differences were due primarily to differences in selection of individual input parameter values by the model operators for the test.

The authors concluded that the previous shell version (PE3.PL) has been successfully
reprogrammed (PE4.PL (version 1 dated January 9, 2003)) to provide reliable extraction of
instantaneous concentrations, appropriate hydrology parameters for index reservoir and standard pond, and reliable parameterization of monthly average temperatures.

Exact replication of concentrations from the benchmark DOS simulations and PE4.PL did not occur as expected, because of effects of some specific operator decisions rather than because of inherent problems in program operation.  An example of this is that in some cases inappropriate stream hydrology conditions (SEEPS, EVAP, STSED) were used in the standard pond and index reservoir.  These conditions could be attributed, to modeler error as well as well as insufficiently explicit instruction in the original QA/QC plan.

ACTION: Dr. Nguyen to put her presentation on QA/QC on the web site.

GIS Watershed Analysis for Refined Aquatic Risk Assessments - Jim Carleton

Reviewed determination of  static water bodies (ponds) and pond sizes on  a HUC by HUC basis.

Picked a HUC (7130009) in central IL  - highly managed and most wetlands converted except those largely associated with the linear features are maintained

Hand merged all the SDTS 30 m DEM's to produce a seamless coverage

Jim did not have NED so had to join them himself.

Linked to NLCD 30 m coverage and  compared NLCD wetlands with NHD streams.

Reviewed by hand editing from DOQQ removed non-water areas indicated in NLCD as ponds.

Left in all dammed streams.

7000 ponds were left in the HUC, then  calculated watershed area based on DEM's

Ratios of watershed to water body area ranged from small to >10000 - may be due to.

Plotted Ag land water area ratios.

Fit to delta log normal function.

Interesting watershed delineation based on 30 m DEM's.

Suggestions

Try Av-SWAT watershed delineation tool.

Use NASS to replace NLCD for detailed crops.

Validate opposite 1:24000 topos to see what we captured and what we missed.

ACTION:  An EPA intern will be picking up this program and applying the same or better technology.

ACTION:  Jim might want to consider sharing the results for this HUC to see if there is further useful information that can be drawn from the area comparison data sets.

Top of page

Summary of New Action Items

Russell Jones to circulate reference to Piacenza journal with details of the conference proceedings (will be added to minutes).

Don Wauchope will circulate an Excel spreadsheet of combined databases (Pesticide Properties and SPISP) when available - aiming for the end of August.

Michael Barrett to consider adding a progress update on the EPA chemical properties database to the September agenda.

Dave Jones's group will report on progress on rice Tier 1 model at the next meeting

Ron Parker will check on potential availability of a national Dunne Overland Flow
coverage (see notes about the WARP model, below).

Michael Barrett to add an agenda item to review background to WARP together with
initial results from the Community water systems  for next time (and invite Charlie Crawford)

Paul Hendley will circulate the outcome of the SDTF meeting on June 11 via the list server.

The instructions for accessing and installing the latest version of EXPRESS were made available at the end of the meeting after many members had left, these instructions should be put on the web site and a note sent around via the list server to alert people to its availability

EFED to check why PE4.pl has not yet been made available on the website - DONE

EFED will consider adding an item to discuss Tier 2 GW needs and conceptual model to the agenda for the September meeting

Russell Jones offered to give / coordinate a presentation on the performance in different soil types/ environmental settings of PRZM, including a discussion of why or why not the model may provide realistic pesticide leaching estimates in different situations.  This would also include some discussion of how alternative models may or may not suffer from the same limitations as PRZM. (and whether there are any other viable alternative models for structured soils) - EFED to discuss and consider adding to the Agenda.

Michael Barrett will schedule progress reports on the EFED research programs at the next EMWG meeting

Michael Barrett still to circulate PGW database templates and, if appropriate,  will arrange for a discussion topic on this at the September EMWG.

Don Wauchope to post the proposal or the soil dissipation meeting at ACS (spring 2004) on the FEMVTF web site.

It would be desirable to have a routine progress report on the calculation of half lives for future EMWG meetings.

All are recommended to pass information on the algal inhibtion technology on to others they work with who might be interested in herbicide and synergism screens

Jerry Hannan to provide his synergism talk to be put on the web site.

Ron Parker to update the EMWG on progress of the FAO comparative model at the next
meeting.

Thuy Nguyen to put her presentation on QA/QC on the web site.

An EPA intern will be picking up the spatial approach to defining ponds and watershed sizes and applying the same or better technology; it would be useful to get an update at a future meeting.

Jim Carleton might want to consider sharing the pond area/ watershed area ratio data for the example HUC to see if there is further useful information that can be drawn from the area comparison data sets

PUTT to send out specific requests for data from 90 watersheds for specific active
ingredients to manufacturers.  Industry should supply sales data ASAP - this is now limiting on wrapping this program up.

EPA to check on the availability of an orchard spray drift study run in concert with Mexico in the mid to late 90's??

Dave Valcore and Andrew Hewitt to supply copies of their presentations to EPA for
placing on the web site.

Gerry Laniak to make his slides available via the web.

EPA to confirm that the next meeting of FIFRA EMWG will be on Tuesday 30th
September.  The meeting will be held in Crystal Mall II, Arlington, VA in room 1126 (the
"fishbowl")

Top of page

Local Navigation

Pesticides Home

Science & Policy Home

Advisory Committees

Policy & Guidance

Test Guidelines

Models & Databases

Laboratories

Analytical Methods Procedures

EPA Home

Privacy and Security Notice

Contact Us

Jump to main content.