[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1984-1987]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00129]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1051; Project Identifier AD-2022-00089-T;
Amendment 39-22257; AD 2022-25-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
The Boeing Company Model 707 and Model 727 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by a report indicating cracking in fastener holes at the
center wing box and at certain positions of the rear spar and lower
skin on a Model 737-300 airplane. A cross model review determined that
similar cracking of the fastener holes in the center wing box lower
skin could occur on Model 707 and Model 727 airplanes. For Model 707
airplanes this AD requires repetitive detailed inspections of the
center wing box lower skin for cracking and repetitive high frequency
eddy current (HFEC) and ultrasonic (UT) inspections of the rear spar
lower chord at a certain position for cracking, repetitive sealant
application, and repair if necessary. For Model 727 airplanes this AD
requires repetitive detailed inspections of the center wing box, lower
skin, and rear spar lower chord at a certain location for cracking,
repetitive sealant application, and repair if necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective February 16, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of February 16,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1051; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, any comments received, and other
information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:

     For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; website myboeingfleet.com.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1051.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Newell, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company
Model 707 and Model 727 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on September 15, 2022 (87 FR 56596). The NPRM was prompted by
a report indicating cracking in fastener holes at the center wing box
and at certain positions of the rear spar and lower skin on a Model
737-300 airplane. A cross model review determined that similar cracking
of the fastener holes in the center wing box lower skin could occur on
Model 707 and Model 727 airplanes. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to
require, for Model 707 airplanes, repetitive detailed inspections of
the center wing box lower skin for cracking and repetitive HFEC and UT
inspections of the rear spar lower chord at a certain position for
cracking, repetitive sealant application, and repair if necessary. For
Model 727 airplanes, the NPRM proposed to require repetitive detailed
inspections of the center wing box, lower skin, and rear spar lower
chord at a certain location for cracking, repetitive sealant
application, and repair if necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address cracking in the center wing box lower skin or rear spar lower
chord, which could result in the inability of the structure to sustain
limit load and adversely affect the structural integrity of the
airplane.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from Boeing and an individual who
supported the NPRM without change.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this
AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will
increase the economic burden on any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing 707 Alert Requirements Bulletin A3544 RB,
dated November 1, 2021. This service information specifies procedures
for repetitive internal detailed inspections of the center wing box
lower skin for cracking and repetitive internal surface HFEC and UT
inspections of the rear spar lower chord between left body buttock line
(LBBL) 40 and right body buttock line (RBBL) 40 for cracking,
repetitive sealant application, and repair.
    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 727-57A0190 RB,
dated September 13, 2021. This service information specifies procedures
for repetitive internal detailed inspections for cracking of the center
wing box, lower skin, and rear spar lower chord between LBBL 34.7 and
RBBL 34.7, repetitive sealant application, and repair.
    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 ADDRESSES.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 48 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections and sealant            34 work-hours x $85              $0  $2,890 per           $66,470 per
 application Model 707 airplanes.   per hour = $2,890                    inspection cycle.    inspection cycle
                                    per inspection                                            (23 airplanes).
                                    cycle.
Inspections and sealant            22 work-hours x $85               0  $1,870 per           $46,750 per
 application Model 727 airplanes.   per hour = $1,870                    inspection cycle.    inspection cycle
                                    per inspection                                            (25 airplanes).
                                    cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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:  9 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:

2022-25-01 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-22257; Docket No. FAA-
2022-1051; Project Identifier AD-2022-00089-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective February 16,
2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company airplanes specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this AD, certificated in any
category.
    (1) Model 707-100 Long Body, -200, -100B Long Body, and -100B
Short Body series airplanes.
    (2) Model 707-300, -300B, -300C, and -400 series airplanes.
    (3) Model 727, 727C, 727-100, 727-100C, 727-200, and 727-200F
series airplanes.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating cracking in fastener
holes at the center wing box and at certain positions of the rear
spar and lower skin on a Model 737-300 airplane. A cross model
review determined that similar cracking of the fastener holes in the
center wing box lower skin could occur on Model 707 and Model 727
airplanes. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking in the
center wing box lower skin or rear spar lower chord, which could
result in the inability of the structure to sustain limit load and
adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions for Group 1 Model 727 Airplanes

    For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Boeing Alert Requirements
Bulletin 727-57A0190 RB, dated September 13, 2021: Within 120 days
after the effective date of this AD, inspect the airplane and do all
applicable on-condition actions using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this
AD.

(h) Required Actions for Groups 2 and 3 Model 727 Airplanes and All
Model 707 Airplanes

    Except as specified by paragraph (i) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing
707 Alert Requirements Bulletin A3544 RB, dated November 1, 2021; or
Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 727-57A0190 RB, dated September
13, 2021; as applicable, do all applicable actions identified in,
and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
707 Alert Requirements Bulletin A3544 RB, dated November 1, 2021; or
Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 727-57A0190 RB, dated September
13, 2021, as applicable.

    Note 1 to paragraph (h): Guidance for accomplishing the actions
required by this AD can be found in Boeing 707 Alert Service
Bulletin A3544, dated November 1, 2021, which is referred to in
Boeing 707 Alert Requirements Bulletin A3544 RB, dated November 1,
2021; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-57A0190, dated September
13, 2021, which is referred to in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
727-57A0190 RB, dated September 13, 2021.

(i) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where the Compliance Time columns of the tables in the
``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing 707 Alert Requirements Bulletin
A3544 RB, dated November 1, 2021, uses the phrase ``the original
issue date of Requirements Bulletin 707A3544 RB'' this AD requires
using ``the effective date of this AD.''
    (2) Where the Compliance Time columns of the tables in the
``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 727-
57A0190 RB, dated September 13, 2021, uses the phrase ``the original
issue date of Requirements Bulletin 727-57A0190 RB'' this AD
requires using ``the effective date of this AD.''
    (3) Where Boeing 707 Alert Requirements Bulletin A3544 RB, dated
November 1, 2021, specifies contacting Boeing for repair
instructions: This AD requires doing the repair using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(j) of this AD.
    (4) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 727-57A0190 RB,
dated September 13, 2021, specifies contacting Boeing for repair
instructions: This AD requires doing the repair using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(j) of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO 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 responsible Flight Standards
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los
Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(k) Additional Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Sean Newell,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5266; email: [email protected].
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (l)(3) and (4) of this AD.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing 707 Alert Requirements Bulletin A3544 RB, dated
November 1, 2021.
    (ii) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 727-57A0190 RB, dated
September 13, 2021.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; website myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, 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,

[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on November 22, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-00129 Filed 1-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Extracting Useable Data from ERNS Incidents Applicable to HRM Facilities (December 2015)
The Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) is used to store information on notifications of oil discharges and hazardous substances releases. The types of release reports that are available in ERNS fall into three major categories: substances designated as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended; oil and petroleum products, as defined by the Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA), as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990; and all other types of materials.  Because CERCLA defines hazardous substances to include CWA hazardous substances and toxic pollutants, the Clean Air Act hazardous air pollutants, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous wastes, and the Toxic Substances Control Act imminently hazardous chemical substances, releases of these substances are also subject to CERCLA reporting requirements. ERNS contains, in addition to other data, information about the material and the quantity released, where the release occurred, when the release occurred, and information about property damage, injuries, and deaths occurring due to the release. ERNS primarily contains initial accounts of releases reported to the National Response Center (NRC), made during or immediately after a release occurs when exact details are often unknown.  It also should be noted that the National Response Center is strictly an initial report taking agency and does not participate in the investigation or incident response. The NRC is staffed by Coast Guard personnel.  The NRC receives initial reporting information only and notifies Federal and State On-Scene Coordinators for response. Verification of data and incident response are the sole responsibility of Federal/State On-Scene Coordinators. There may be multiple reports for a single incident, (this occurs when the caller makes a second report to update original data or a private observer reports a release that has already been reported by the facility). Because reports are taken over the phone, transcription errors (e.g., misspellings of discharger or location information), might limit the quality of some data.

From the National Response Center (NRC) website (http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/Default.aspx), we downloaded, by year, the details for each call made reporting a release  -  from 1982 through 2014.  (Note: the recently updated NRC website now only shows releases reports beginning with 1990.)  Each annual Microsoft Excel data file has the following worksheets:
 Calls (used for this analysis)
 Incident Commons (used for this analysis)
 Incident Details (used for this analysis)
 Material Involved (used for this analysis)
 Material Involved CR (Continuous Release)
 Trains Detail
 Derailed Units
 Vessels Detail
 Mobile Details
However, the data for the calls made from 1982 through 1989 are difficult to use  -  with differing formats, missing and/or inconsistent data fields, etc.  In 1990 a more uniform and consistent format for documenting calls was put into place.   As such, we eliminated the pre-1990 reported releases from further consideration and used only the reported releases, from 1990-2014, as a starting point for subsequent analyses. (Note: For these reported releases, we only used releases for which a facility name was identified.)  Based on the Incident Description data, we also removed reported releases that were identified as drills, i.e., releases that didn't really occur, but served as practice for emergency responders.  Calls that were identified as being an update/correction to a previously reported release were not counted as a separate release; we incorporated any corrected data into the original reported release.
Approach Used to Extract Applicable ERNS Data
We created a Microsoft Access database and uploaded the following ERNS data for 1990 through 2014:
 For the `Facility Info' table (derived from the Calls and Incident Commons data), we uploaded the records showing the name and address of the facility associated with the reported release.
 For the `Material Released' table (derived from the Material Involved data), we uploaded records to provide the CHRIS code, material released, and amount released  -  including to water.  (Note: for numerous reported releases, more than one released substance was reported).
 For each of the `Incident Description' (derived from the Incident Commons data) and Incident Details (derived from the Incident Details data) tables, we uploaded records that included a brief description of the reported release and the type and cause of the release.  The `Incident Details' table includes such information as fire involved, evacuations, fatalities, injuries, damages, road closures, description of remedial response, and federal/state agency notified.
EPA next needed to determine which of these reported releases involved a CERCLA hazardous substance.  The NRC assigns a 3 letter code, termed a Chemical Hazard Response Information System (CHRIS) code to each reported release incident.  In November 2012, EPA obtained from the Coast Guard a comprehensive list of 2,643 CHRIS codes.  For more than 1,300 of these CHRIS codes, an almost 3,000 page manual developed by the U.S. Coast Guard includes a data sheet that addresses, among other topics, cautionary response information, fire hazards, chemical reactivity, health hazards, and a chemical designation section in which the associated Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) number(s) are indicated.  When made available in the Coast Guard Manual, we used the indicated CAS Number as a bridge to cross-check each of the CHRIS codes with the list of CERCLA Hazardous Substances.  In order to identify those incidents that involved CERCLA hazardous substances, we determined, using the Coast Guard Manual Chemical Hazard Response Information System (CHRIS), COMDTINST M16565.12C (available online at www.chrismanual.com) the Chemical Abstract System (CAS) Number for each of the listed CHRIS codes.  For codes not listed in this manual, EPA manually tried to determine if the released material was a CERCLA hazardous substance by comparing the description of the released material (from the incident report) with the list of CERCLA hazardous substances. Also, some CAS Numbers were not identified in the 1999 version of the Coast Guard Manual; for those CHRIS Codes, we used the CAMEO database to determine the associated CAS Number.  We cross-checked each CAS Number derived from the Coast Guard Manual/Cameo data with the CAS number shown in the List of CERCLA hazardous substances to determine if they matched. We developed an Excel table showing each CHRIS code that we identified as being associated with a CERCLA hazardous substance, the associated CAS No., and corresponding CERCLA hazardous substance name and uploaded these data into the Access database.
However, EPA needed to use two pathways to evaluate which of the reported releases potentially involved a CERCLA hazardous substance.
 EPA identified eleven (11) CHRIS codes that were non-specific or served as a "catch-all" code and thus not associated with a specific CAS Number that was needed to make the cross-check with the list of CERCLA hazardous substances (see table below).  However, only five of these codes (MUL, MWS, NCC, RAM, UNK) were used in the ERNS data for 1990-2014.
                  "Non-Specific" Three Letter CHRIS Code
                         Name of Hazardous Substance
                                      MUL
Multiple material releases
                                      MWS
Solvents, mixed/waste - possible contaminant
                                      NCC
No CHRIS Code
                                      NEC
Not elsewhere specified
                                      RAD
Radioactive materials
                                      RAM
Radioactive material
                                      RAN
Radionuclides (including radon)
                                      RAS
Radioactive material, surface contaminated objects
                                      RAL
Radioactive material, low specific activity
                                      EHL
Environmentally hazardous substances
                                      UNK
Unknown material

EPA extracted the reported releases assigned one of these codes (see table below) and then manually reviewed the description of the `Material Released' and/or the `Incident Details' of each reported release to determine if there was sufficient information to indicate the release potentially involved a CERCLA hazardous substance and thus retain it for further analysis to allow further evaluation and ascertain their applicability to the universe of facilities under consideration.  Because the incidents assigned a NCC code typically do not show a specific CAS No., we primarily used the material released info in each reported incident, to determine which of these incidents might have involved a CERCLA hazardous substance, and extracted incidents based on the following:
 Cross-referencing with the List of CERCLA Hazardous Substances to identify those incidents for which there was a direct correlation, based on name of the CERCLA hazardous substance.
 The name of the released material explicitly indicated it was a RCRA hazardous waste (by name, RCRA HW code, etc).
 The name of the released material indicated it likely was a RCRA hazardous waste.

 For the other reported releases, for which we had a specific CHRIS code and associated CAS Number, we determined the direct association between each CHRIS code and the list of CERCLA hazardous substances. (Note: For the CHRIS codes in the Coast Guard Manual where a CAS Number was not designated but simply indicated as `Not available' and those CHRIS Codes that are not included in the Coast Guard Manual, EPA used the CAMEO database to determine which, if any, CAS No. was available for making the cross reference with the list of CERCLA hazardous substances.)  Overall, we ultimately identified 753 CHRIS codes that are potentially associated with a CERCLA hazardous substance (based on CAS No.) and applied these codes to the remaining reported releases associated with a CERCLA hazardous substance.  The next step was to identify which of these reported releases might have occurred at a facility within the hardrock mining (HRM) universe.  We did not limit the selection to only facilities believed to be currently operating but also considered any that were operating in some capacity during the 1990-2014 timeframe.) Since the ERNS release incident reports do not include a SIC/NAICS code, we had to rely primarily on facility names to extract the potentially applicable and relevant incidents.  To do so, we applied multiple queries to the dataset release incidents to extract the incidents that might have occurred at HRM facilities.  These queries used terms (e.g., mine, smelter, gold, copper, phosphate) and names of specific facilities (e.g., alcoa, barrick, kennecott), applied to the Facility Name field, to extract an initial cut of reported releases potentially associated with hardrock mining and processing facilities.  Although numerous facilities might have the same name, we tried to determine the nature of the business conducted at each location  -  to identify only those that were of specific interest for the HRM universe.

 Variations in the reported name of the facility, along with name changes due to mergers, company reorganizations, mis-spellings, etc. result in a given facility sometimes having multiple names over the 1990-2014 period.  As such, taking into account the facility name, facility address, and incident description, we assigned a facility name to provide consistency and thus facilitate and enhance our analyses of the reported release incidents.  We manually reviewed each of these release incidents to determine which of them likely were associated with potential HRM facilities.

 Using the facility name, address, and incident description, we assigned one of the following commodity groups (Aluminum, Bulk Products, Ferrous Metals, Industrial rocks/Mineral feedstocks, Non-Ferrous Metals, Phosphates, Rare Earth Minerals, and Radioactive Metals) to each reported release, as shown in the following table.   However, 59 commodity classes of non-fuel hardrock mining sectors were identified by EPA (as noted in the Hoffman-Mahmud memo) to be excluded from among those "hardrock mining facilities" for which financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA 108(b) will be first developed.

 Each release reported to the National Response Center is classified, using one of the Incident Types described in the table below.  For the purposes of the CERCLA 108(b) HRM rulemaking, we believe the release incidents classified as fixed and storage tank are the most applicable.
         Types of Incidents for Classifying Reports of Released Hazardous Substances
                                   AIRCRAFT
                                   PLATFORM
An AIRCRAFT Incident includes all aircraft, commercial and private, whether flying or grounded. For example, a hydraulic leak from an aircraft that occurs while undergoing repairs would require a report.
A PLATFORM Incident is specifically for offshore or near shore oil and natural gas extracting facilities. The area and block number are important fields that need to be entered in this report, unless the platform is in state waters. Please enter the OCSG, OCSP, or state lease numbers in the report.
                              CONTINUOUS RELEASE
                                   RAILROAD
A CONTINUOUS RELEASE is a release above the Federal limits, also called reportable quantity (RQ), due to normal operations of a facility. This incident type has five categories: Initial, Baseline, Change in Source and/or Composition, Annual, and Statistically Significant Increase (SSI).  For detailed info on the EPA's Continuous Release Program check out their web site.
A RAILROAD Incident includes all transportation modes used on rail. The NRC takes reports on all Railroad Incidents including derailments of freight and commercial trains, HAZMAT and non-hazmat rail incidents, light rail, subway, metro rail, and grade crossing accidents.
                                    FIXED
                                    MOBILE
A FIXED Incident is the widest ranging incident type and includes the release of material from non-mobile machinery, refineries, manufacturing plants, and numerous other fixed facilities.
A MOBILE Incident refers to all transportation modes used on land. It includes commercial and private vehicles, motorcycles etc. Some of the most common incidents associated with this category are tractor-trailer accidents.
                                 STORAGE TANK
                                UNKNOWN SHEEN
A STORAGE TANK Incident pertains to containers that store hazardous materials located virtually anywhere including facilities, private property, and various transportation modes. Common storage tank incidents include leaking or overfilled home heating oil tanks, ruptured underground storage tanks from construction activity and petroleum storage facilities.
An UNKNOWN SHEEN Incident type pertains to any material on the water that has been discovered and whose source is unknown. Please describe the size and color of the material and an estimate of the amount released. (I.E. less than a gallon, less than 100 gallons, over 3000 gallons, etc.). Information on weather and direction of movement are also important.
                                   PIPELINE
                                    VESSEL
A PIPELINE Incident refers to pipelines that transport materials off site. This does not include pipelines within a facility. Such pipelines are often regulated by the Department of Transportation. Common pipeline types include flow, distribution and gathering lines transporting crude oil or natural gas from one facility to another.
A VESSEL Report includes all transportation modes used on the water.   Common reports include private vessels that accidentally release bilge water, oil barges with leaks, cranes that are on barges, etc.
Source: http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/htmlreport.html
However, based on the incident description, we believe some release incidents may have been incorrectly classified.  For example, a Pipeline Incident is intended to refer to pipelines that transport materials off site and does not include pipelines within a facility.  For releases that were originally classified as `Pipeline' but that did not seemingly involve actual transport of the hazardous substance offsite, we assigned a substitute classification, usually `Process or Transfer Piping/Pump/Valve', based on the information provided in the incident description.  To facilitate and enhance our analyses of the reported release incidents, we assigned a more detailed Incident Type, as a substitute for each of the originally reported Incident Types, using one of the following:
Blasting/Drilling Operation
Canal/Ditch/Channel
Capacitor/Transformer
Coke Oven/Battery and Associated Equipment
Continuous/Planned Release
Dumping
Facility Building
Loading/Unloading: Barge/Vessel
Loading/Unloading: Tanker/Trailer Truck
Mine
Motor Vehicle: Car/Truck
Non-Transport: Drum/Container/Cylinder/Tote/Portable Tank
Onsite Excavating/Hauling/Loading Machine
Other Miscellaneous Equipment
Other Miscellaneous Release/Discharge
Pond/Impoundment/Pile/Landfill
Process or Transfer Piping/Pump/Valve
Process Unit, Storage/Treatment Tank-Sump
Residential Impact
Secondary Containment Area/Leachate Collection
Stack/Vent/Flare/Air Pollution Control
Train/Railcar
Transport: Drum/Container/Cylinder/Tote/Portable Tank
Transport: Tanker/Trailer Truck

In addition to each reported release incident being designated with an Incident Type, an Incident Cause also is provided in the ERNS data.  Again, as with the Incident Type, we assigned our own Incident Cause, based on the information provided in the incident description, to facilitate and enhance our analyses of these data.  As such, we assigned one of the following Incident Causes to each release incident, as a substitute for each of the originally reported Incident Causes:
Accident/Operator Error
Damage Due to Storm/Weather (Wind/Rain/Ice)
Demolition Activity
Equipment Failure: Flange/Gasket
Equipment Failure: Misc/Unspecified
Equipment Failure: Miscellaneous/Unspecified
Equipment Failure: Piping/Hose Break or Leak
Equipment Failure: Pressure Relief Valve
Equipment Failure: Process/Storage/Treatment Unit Structural Integrity
Equipment Failure: Pump
Equipment Failure: Radiator/Cooling Line
Equipment Failure: Secondary Containment
Equipment Failure: Valve
Excess Pressure/Temperature
Fire/Explosion
Illegal Dumping
Maintenance/Repair/Sampling/Testing
Normal Operating and Material Handling
Operator Error
Overfill
Plant/Process Upset
Power Outage/Electrical Malfunction
Startup/Shutdown Issue
Unknown


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38473-38474]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15513]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EG21-195-000.
    Applicants: Tulare Solar Center, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Tulare Solar Center, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/13/21.
    Accession Number: 20210713-5163.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/21.

    Docket Numbers: EG21-196-000.
    Applicants: Boulder Solar III, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of EG or FC of Boulder Solar III,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20210715-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/21.

    Docket Numbers: EG21-197-000.
    Applicants: Ho'ohana Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator
Status of Ho'ohana Solar 1, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20210715-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/21.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER21-857-002; ER21-856-002.
    Applicants: Trent River Solar, LLC, PGR Lessee P, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to June 30, 2021 Notice of Non-Material
Change in Status of Trent River Solar, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20210715-5043.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1191-008.
    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amended and Restated Minden PSA to
be effective 8/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/14/21.
    Accession Number: 20210714-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1962-001.
    Applicants: Mulberry BESS LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to Market-Based Rate
Application to be effective 5/21/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20210715-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/26/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2025-000.
    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.
    Description: Supplemental Motion of Tampa Electric Company to the
May 27, 2021 Request for Waiver by Tampa Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 7/12/21.
    Accession Number: 20210712-5184.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2400-000.
    Applicants: Long Island Power Authority.
    Description: Joint Request for Limited Waiver of Long Island Power
Authority and Long Island Solar Farm.
    Filed Date: 7/12/21.
    Accession Number: 20210712-5181.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/26/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2420-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-07-14_SA 3257 ITC
Midwest-Louise Solar Project 1st Rev GIA (J523) to be effective 6/29/
2021.
    Filed Date: 7/14/21.
    Accession Number: 20210714-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2421-000.
    Applicants: RE Garland A LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing: Garland Storage Shared Facilities
Agreement Concurrence Filing to be effective 7/15/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/14/21.
    Accession Number: 20210714-5135.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2422-000.
    Applicants: SP Garland Solar Storage, LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing: Garland Storage Shared Facilities
Agreement Concurrence Filing to be effective 7/15/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/14/21.
    Accession Number: 20210714-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2423-000.
    Applicants: Generation Bridge Connecticut Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Market-Based Rate Application
and Request for Expedited Action to be effective 7/15/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/14/21.
    Accession Number: 20210714-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2424-000.
    Applicants: Generation Bridge M&M Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Market-Based Rate Application
and Request for Expedited Action to be effective 7/15/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/14/21.
    Accession Number: 20210714-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2425-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement No. 392 to
be effective 6/30/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/14/21.
    Accession Number: 20210714-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2426-000.
    Applicants: CPRE 1 Lessee, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: App. for MBR Authority,
Request for Asso. Waivers & Auth. to make Affiliate Sales to be
effective 9/13/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/14/21.
    Accession Number: 20210714-5156.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2427-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, Service
Agreement No. 6108; Queue No. AE1-183 to be effective 6/17/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20210715-5016.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2428-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, New York Independent
System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 205: SGIA between Niagara
Mohawk and Capital Hill Solar, SA No. 2641 to be effective 6/15/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20210715-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2429-000.
    Applicants: Tulare Solar Center, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Tulare Solar Center, LLC MBR
Tariff to be effective 7/16/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20210715-5048.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2430-000.
    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: VEPCo submits revised Mutual
Operating Agreement No. 2032 to be effective 6/15/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20210715-5051.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2431-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: LGIA Desert Quartzite, LLC--
Quartzite Solar 11 SA No. 270, TOT872 to be effective 7/16/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20210715-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2432-000.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Captiva Energy Storage E&P
Agreement to be effective 7/16/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20210715-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2433-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: FPL Cancellation of eTariff
Records for Attachments H-1 and H-2 of the OATT to be effective 4/1/
2020.
    Filed Date: 7/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20210715-5068.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2434-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: BPA NITSA--(SE Idaho Area)
Rev 6 to be effective 7/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20210715-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2435-000.
    Applicants: WPS Power Development, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of Market-Based Rate
Tariff to be effective 9/14/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20210715-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/21.

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

    Dated: July 15, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15513 Filed 7-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Terbacil/ PC Code 012701/ Dupont DACO 7.4.1/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial  watermelon DP Barcode: D313911 MRID No. 46007101 Page 1 of 10 Date 21 December 2005 Primary Evaluator Tom Bloem, Chemist Registration Action Branch 1 ( RAB1) Health Effects Division ( HED; 7509C)

Approved by George F. Kramer, Ph. D., Chemist RAB1/ HED ( 7509C)

In the absence of signatures, this document is considered to be a draft with deliberative material for internal use only.

STUDY REPORT:

MRID 46007101. Corely, J. ( 2003). Terbacil: Magnitude of the Residues on Watermelon. IR 4 PR No. 02841. Unpublished study prepared by IR 4 ( North Brunswick, NJ). 262 p.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Five watermelon trials were conducted in Regions 2 ( n= 2), 3 ( n= 1), 6 ( n= 1), and 10 ( n= 1). At each field trial, the plants were treated with a single broadcast spray application of a 80% wettable powder ( WP) terbacil formulation at 0.248 0.297 lb ai/ acre ( 23 40 gallons/ acre ( GPA)). Applications were made after planting but prior to crop emergence. Duplicate control and treated samples were collected at maturity, 69 94 days after application.

The harvested samples were analyzed for residues of terbacil and metabolites A, B, and C using the Dupont method AMR 1719 90 ( see attachment 1 for structures). Acceptable method validation and concurrent recovery data were provided. Based on the lowest method validation level which resulted in acceptable recoveries, the limit of quantitation ( LOQ) for terbacil, metabolite B, and metabolite C is 0.10 ppm and the LOQ for metabolite A is 0.30 ppm ( unacceptable recoveries at 0.10 ppm). Since terbacil residues in/ on control samples from the field trials ranged from < 0.001 0.182 ppm (< 0.001 ppm ( n= 2), 0.047 0.078 ppm ( n= 8), 0.134 ppm, and 0.182 ppm), the study indicated a LOQ of 0.50 ppm for terbacil ( acceptable recoveries were attained at 0.50 ppm in the storage stability data submitted with this study; see below). The study indicated that it is possible that the controls samples which resulted in terbacil residues of 0.134 ppm and 0.182 ppm may have been treated samples but were mislabeled as untreated; no evidence to confirm this suspicion is available. HED notes that if the 0.134 ppm and 0.182 ppm control samples are excluded and based on the residues in/ on the remaining control samples, a terbacil LOQ of at least 0.20 ppm would be established ( assumes LOQ = 3x the background).

The maximum storage interval from harvest to analysis was 268 days. As part of the current study, the petitioner submitted watermelon storage stability data which resulted in acceptable recoveries of terbacil, metabolites A, B, and C following 279 days of storage. However, the data did not include a 0 day analysis to confirm the fortification level. Adequate storage stability data have been previously submitted and reviewed for terbacil and metabolites A, B, and C in/ on alfalfa Terbacil/ PC Code 012701/ Dupont DACO 7.4.1/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial  watermelon DP Barcode: D313911 MRID No. 46007101 Page 2 of 10 ( 24 months), apples ( 6 months), blueberry ( 6 months), mint ( 18 months), milk ( 1 month), and sugarcane ( 6 months; HED Reregistration Eligibility Document ( RED), D. Miller, 18 Dec 1996). HED concludes that the combination of the watermelon storage stability data submitted with this study and the previously reviewed storage stability data are sufficient to validate the current study.

Residues of terbacil, metabolite A, metabolite B, and metabolite C were < LOQ in/ on all samples (< 0.50 ppm, < 0.30 ppm, < 0.10 ppm, and < 0.10 ppm, respectively). Since the terbacil LOQ is based on the detection of terbacil residues in/ on field trial control samples at 0.134 ppm and 0.182 ppm and since the study indicated that these samples may have been treated samples mislabeled as untreated samples, terbacil residues which were < LOQ are reported (< 0.001 0.230 ppm).

STUDY/ WAIVER ACCEPTABILITY/ DEFICIENCIES/ CLARIFICATIONS:

Provided HED determines that the method is sufficiently sensitive ( LOQs = 0.10 0.50 ppm), the field trial residue data may be classified as scientifically acceptable. The acceptability of this study for regulatory purposes is addressed in the forthcoming U. S. EPA Residue Chemistry Summary Document ( D313911).

COMPLIANCE:

The in life phase of the study was conducted by several companies and the analytical phase of the study was conducted by PTRL West Inc. ( Richmond, CA). Signed and dated Good Laboratory Practices ( GLP), Quality Assurance, and Data Confidentiality statements were provided. No deviations from regulatory requirements were reported which would have an impact on the validity of the study. Terbacil/ PC Code 012701/ Dupont DACO 7.4.1/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial  watermelon DP Barcode: D313911 MRID No. 46007101 Page 3 of 10 N HN O C( CH3) 3 O Cl H3C A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Terbacil provides control of annual grasses and broadleaf weeds via photosynthesis inhibition ( inhibition of photosystem II). Terbacil is readily absorbed by roots and translocated upward; when absorbed by leaves, translocation is minimal.

Table A. 1. Test Compound Nomenclature.

Chemical structure Common name terbacil Company experimental name DPX D0732 IUPAC name 3 tert butyl 5 chloro 6 methyluracil CAS name 5 chloro 3( 1,1 dimethylethyl) 6 methyl 2,4( 1H, 3H) pyrimidinedione CAS registry number 5902 51 2 End use product ( EP) Sinbar ® 80WP ( wettable powder 80% terbacil by weigth)

Table A. 2. Physicochemical Properties of the Technical Grade Test Compound.

Parameter Value Reference Melting point/ range 175 177 ° C Terbacil Reregistration Standard ( 8 Mar 1989, R. Schmitt) pH not available Density 1.34 g/ cm3 ( 25 /

C)

Water solubility ( mg/ L ( 25 ° C)) 710 Solvent solubility ( mg/ mL ( 25 ° C)) dimethylformamide 33.7 cyclohexane 22 methyl isobutyl ketone 13.8 butyl acetate 9.7 Xylene 6.5 Vapor pressure 4.7 x 10 7 mm Hg ( 29.5 /

C)

Dissociation constant, pKa not available Octanol/ water partition coefficient ( KOW) 81.9 UV/ visible absorption spectrum not available Terbacil/ PC Code 012701/ Dupont DACO 7.4.1/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial  watermelon DP Barcode: D313911 MRID No. 46007101 Page 4 of 10 B. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN B. 1. Study Site Information Temperature and rainfall recordings were not provided at any of the field trial sites. The study did indicate that the weather was warmer and wetter than normal at the Westlaco, TX field trial and warmer and drier than normal at the Salisbury, MD field trial. Table B. 1.1 is a summary of the field trial site conditions; Table B. 1.2 is a summary of the use pattern; Table B. 1.3 is a summary of the geographical distribution of the submitted watermelon field trials and the suggested geographical distribution for a US watermelon registration Table B. 1.1. Trial Site Conditions.

Trial Identification ( City, State; Year; EPA Region) Soil characteristics Meteorological data Type % Organic Matter pH CEC ( meq/ g) 1 Overall monthly rainfall range ( inches) Overall temperature range ( ° C)

Holyville, CA; 1997; Region 10 silty clay loam 0.79 7.9 not reported not reported Gainesville, FL; 1997; Region 3 sand not reported not reported Tifton, GA; 1997; Region 2 loamy sand 0.85 6.2 not reported not reported Salisbury, MD; 1997; Region 2 loamy sand 0.92 6 not reported not reported Weslaco, TX; 1997; Region 62 clay not reported 8.3 not reported not reported 1 cation exchange capacity ( milliequivalents per gram) 2 study indicate two field trials conducted in Weslaco, TX; HED considers this as a single field trial as they were conducted on the same farm using the same application date, equipment, and watermelon variety Table B. 1.2. Study Use Pattern.

Trial Identification ( City, State; Year; EPA Region) EP1 Application Tank Mix Adjuvants Method; Timing Vol. ( GPA) Rate ( lb ai/ A) RTI3 ( days) Total Rate ( lb ai/ A)

Holtville, CA; 1997; Region 10 80WP broadcast spray postplanting pre emergence 30 0.297  0.297 none Gainesville, FL; 1997; Region 3 80WP broadcast spray postplanting pre emergence 29 0.245  0.245 none Tifton, GA; 1997; Region 2 80WP broadcast spray postplanting pre emergence 30 0.254  0.254 none Salisbury, MD; 1997; Region 2 80WP broadcast spray postplanting pre emergence 23 0.253  0.253 none Weslaco, TX; 1997; Region 62 80WP broadcast spray postplanting pre emergence 39 40 0.248 0.251  0.25 none 1 EP= End use Product 2 study indicate two field trials conducted in Weslaco, TX; HED considers this as a single field trial as they were conducted on the same farm using the same application date, equipment, and watermelon variety 3 RTI = retreatment interval Terbacil/ PC Code 012701/ Dupont DACO 7.4.1/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial  watermelon DP Barcode: D313911 MRID No. 46007101 Page 5 of 10 Table B. 1.3. Trial Numbers and Geographical Locations.

NAFTA Growing Region watermelon Submitted Requested 1 2 2 2/ 2 3 1 2/ 1 4 5 1/ 0 6 1 2/ 2 7 8 9 10 1 1/ 1 11 12 13 Total 5 8/ 6 1 The second number is for situations where a 25% reduction in the number of trials is possible due to residues < LOQ or due to the crop being a representative crop used to obtain a crop group tolerance.

B. 2. Sample Handling and Preparation Duplicate treated and untreated samples were collected 69 94 days after application. A minimum of twelve watermelons were collected per sample; the samples were reduced by cutting and sampling a longitudinal section, approximately 1 2 inches thick, from each watermelon. The samples were placed in frozen storage within 1 hour of collection and were shipped frozen to PTRL West Inc. ( Richmond, CA) for analysis via an ACDS freezer truck or on dry ice via overnight delivery. Upon arrival at the analytical facility, the samples were stored frozen until analysis.

B. 3. Analytical Methodology The samples were analyzed by PTRL West Inc. ( Richmond, CA) for residues of terbacil and metabolites A, B, and C using the Dupont method AMR 1719 90. Briefly, samples are extracted with chloroform. Water is added to the extract and the chloroform is evaporated. The aqueous extract is transferred to separatory funnel along with acetonitrile and partitioned with hexane. The acetonitrile phase is collected, reduced to dryness, reconstituted in 0.1% NaOH, transferred to a separatory funnel, and partitioned with ethyl acetate. The ethyl acetate phases are collected and dervatized with bis( trimethylsilyl) trifluoroacetamide ( BSTFA) and 1% trimethylchlorosilane ( TMCS; 16 hours, room temperature). Water is added to the derivatized extract and the upper phase is collected and placed on top of a sodium sulfate clean up column. The residues are eluted from the sodium sulfate column with ethyl acetate, concentrated to dryness, reconstituted in ethyl acetate/ hexane, and passed through a florisil clean up column. Residues are eluted from the florisil column with ethyl acetate/ hexane and methanol/ ethyl acetate/ toluene, concentrated to dryness, reconstituted in ethyl acetate, and analyzed via gas chromatograph/ nitrogen phosphorus Terbacil/ PC Code 012701/ Dupont DACO 7.4.1/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial  watermelon DP Barcode: D313911 MRID No. 46007101 Page 6 of 10 detection ( GC/ NPD). Based on the lowest method validation level, the LOQ was 0.10 ppm for terbacil, metabolite A, and Metabolite C and 0.30 ppm for metabolite A ( recoveries of metabolite A at 0.10 ppm were unacceptable).

C. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Five watermelon trials were conducted in Regions 2 ( n= 2), 3 ( n= 1), 6 ( n= 1), and 10 ( n= 1). At each field trial, the plants were treated with a single broadcast spray application of a 80% WP terbacil formulation at 0.248 0.297 lb ai/ acre. Applications were made after planting but prior to crop emergence. Duplicate control and treated samples were collected at maturity, 69 94 days after application.

The harvested samples were analyzed for residues of terbacil, metabolite A, metabolite B, and metabolite C using the Dupont method AMR 1719 90. Concurrent method recovery data are presented in Table C. 1. Based on the lowest method validation level which resulted in acceptable recoveries, the LOQ for terbacil, metabolite B, and metabolite C is 0.10 ppm and the LOQ for metabolite A is 0.30 ppm ( unacceptable recoveries at 0.10 ppm see table C. 1). Since terbacil residues in/ on control samples from the field trials ranged from < 0.001 0.182 ppm (< 0.001 ppm ( n= 2), 0.047 0.078 ppm ( n= 8), 0.134 ppm, and 0.182 ppm), the study indicated a LOQ of 0.50 ppm for terbacil ( acceptable recoveries were attained at 0.50 ppm in the storage stability data submitted with this study; see below). The study indicated that it is possible that the controls samples which resulted in terbacil residues of 0.134 ppm and 0.182 ppm may have been treated samples but were mislabeled as untreated; no evidence to confirm this suspicion is available. HED notes that if the 0.134 ppm and 0.182 ppm control samples are excluded and based on the residues in/ on the remaining control samples, a terbacil LOQ of at least 0.20 ppm would be established ( assumes LOQ = 3x the background).

Sample storage conditions and intervals are summarized in Table C. 2. The maximum storage interval from harvest to analysis was 268 days. As part of the current study, the petitioner submitted watermelon storage stability data which resulted in acceptable recoveries of terbacil and metabolites A, B, and C following 279 days of storage ( see Table C. 4). However, the data did not include a 0 day analysis to confirm the fortification level. Adequate storage stability data have been previously submitted and reviewed for terbacil and metabolites A, B, and C in/ on alfalfa ( 24 months), apples ( 6 months), blueberry ( 6 months), mint ( 18 months), milk ( 1 month), and sugarcane ( 6 months; HED RED, D. Miller, 18 Dec 1996). HED concludes that the combination of the watermelon storage stability data submitted with this study and the previously reviewed storage stability data are sufficient to validate the current study.

Residues of terbacil, metabolite A, metabolite B, and metabolite C were < LOQ in/ on all samples (< 0.50 ppm, < 0.30 ppm, < 0.10 ppm, and < 0.10 ppm, respectively; see Tables C. 5 and C. 6). Since the terbacil LOQ is based on the detection of terbacil residues in/ on field trial control samples at 0.134 ppm and 0.182 ppm and since the study indicated that these samples may have been treated samples mislabeled as untreated samples, Table C. 5 includes terbacil residues which were < LOQ (< 0.001 0.230 ppm). Terbacil/ PC Code 012701/ Dupont DACO 7.4.1/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial  watermelon DP Barcode: D313911 MRID No. 46007101 Page 7 of 10 Table C. 1. Summary of Method Validation Recoveries of Terbacil and Metabolites A C from Watermelon.

Matrix Spike level ( ppm) Sample size ( n) Recoveries (%) Mean ± std dev Watermelon terbacil 0.10 3 83, 96, 137 111 ± 19 1.0 3 118, 120, 111 metabolite A 0.10 3 151, 139, 125 138 ± 13 0.30 3 97, 124, 139 118 ± 14 1.0 3 116, 118, 111 metabolite B 0.10 3 61, 82, 85 76 ± 13 1.0 3 51, 51, 45 49 ± 3 metabolite C 0.10 3 110, 85, 82 91 ± 11 1.0 3 91, 96, 84 Table C. 2. Summary of Concurrent Recoveries of Terbacil and Metabolites A C from Watermelon.

Matrix Spike level ( ppm) Sample size ( n) Recoveries (%) Mean ± std dev Watermelon terbacil 1.0 6 97, 102, 109, 119, 122, 137 114 ± 15 metabolite A 1.0 6 91, 98, 100, 103, 104, 108 101 ± 6 metabolite B 1.0 6 62, 71, 85, 87, 89, 99 80 ± 11 metabolite C 1.0 6 73, 77, 96, 100, 102, 105 92 ± 14 Table C. 3. Summary of Storage Conditions.

Matrix ( RAC or Extract) Storage Temp. ( ° C) Storage Duration 1 Interval of Demonstrated Storage Stability watermelon, fruit frozen 268 days The petitioner submitted watermelon storage stability data ( see Table C. 4); these data did not include a 0 day analysis, and, therefore, are unacceptable. However, when these data are considered with previously submitted and reviewed terbacil, metabolite A, metabolite B, and metabolite C storage stability data ( see next paragraph), HED concludes that the storage interval for the watermelon samples has been validated.

Adequate storage stability data have been submitted for terbacil and metabolites A, B, and C in/ on alfalfa ( 24 months), apples ( 6 months), blueberry ( 6 months), mint ( 18 months), milk ( 1 month), and sugarcane ( 6 months; HED RED, D. Miller, 18 Dec 1996).

1 Storage duration from collection to analysis. All samples were analyzed within 4 days of extraction; no data have been submitted demonstrating the stability of terbacil and metabolites A C in the extracts; since the fortified samples run concurrent to the field trial samples resulted in acceptable recoveries and since the fortified samples were stored in the same matter and duration as the field trial samples, HED concludes that the storage conditions and intervals for the extracts has been validated.

Table C. 4. Storage Stability Data Submitted with the Current Study Matrix Analyte Fortification Level ( ppm) Storage interval ( days) % Recovery for Concurrent Samples1 % Recovery for Stored Samples Corrected % Recovery2 watermelon terbacil 0.5 279 67, 71 ( 69) 107, 108, 110 155, 157, 159 metabolite A 0.5 279 84, 94 ( 89) 93, 92, 93 104, 103, 104 metabolite B 0.5 279 86, 97 ( 92) 92, 93, 96 100, 101, 104 Terbacil/ PC Code 012701/ Dupont DACO 7.4.1/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial  watermelon DP Barcode: D313911 MRID No. 46007101 Page 8 of 10 metabolite C 0.5 279 81, 92 ( 86) 93, 90, 90 108, 105, 105 1 average in parenthesis 2 corrected % recovery = (% recovery for stored sample) ÷ ( avg % recovery for concurrent sample)

Table C. 5. Residue Data from the Watermelon Crop Field Trials.

Trial Identification ( City, State; Year; EPA Region) Crop; Variety Commodity Total Rate ( lb ai/ acre) PHI ( days) Residues ( ppm)

Terbacil1 Metabolite A Metabolite B Metabolite C Holtville, CA; 1997; Region 10 watermelon; Calsweet mature fruit 1 x 0.297 94 < 0.502, < 0.502 ( 0.091, 0.046) < 0.30, < 0.30 < 0.10, < 0.10 < 0.10, < 0.10 Gainesville, FL; 1997; Region 3 watermelon; Mickylee mature fruit 1 x 0.245 70 < 0.503, < 0.503 ( 0.028, 0.041) < 0.30, < 0.30 < 0.10, < 0.10 < 0.10, < 0.10 Tifton, GA; 1997; Region 2 watermelon; Crimson Sweet mature fruit 1 x 0.254 90 < 0.504, < 0.504 ( 0.039, 0.045) < 0.30, < 0.30 < 0.10, < 0.10 < 0.10, < 0.10 Salisbury, MD; 1997; Region 2 watermelon; Jade Star mature fruit 1 x 0.253 69 < 0.505, < 0.505 ( 0.048, < 0.001) < 0.30, < 0.30 < 0.10, < 0.10 < 0.10, < 0.10 Weslaco, TX; 1997; Region 68 watermelon; Sugar Baby mature fruit 1 x 0.248 0.251 71 < 0.506, < 0.506 ( 0.230, 0.056) < 0.507, < 0.507 ( 0.054, 0.050) < 0.30, < 0.30 < 0.30, < 0.30 < 0.10, < 0.10 < 0.10, < 0.10 < 0.10, < 0.10 < 0.10, < 0.10 1 quantified residues < LOQ are presented in parenthesis 2 terbacil residues of 0.047 ppm and < 0.001 ppm were found in/ on controls 3 terbacil residues of 0.050 ppm and < 0.001 ppm were found in/ on controls 4 terbacil residues of 0.056 ppm and 0.057 ppm were found in/ on controls 5 terbacil residues of 0.134 ppm and 0.074 ppm were found in/ on controls; the study stated that it is possible that the treated samples were labeled as untreated and the untreated samples were labeled as treated ( there is no evidence to confirm this suspicion) 6 terbacil residues of 0.078 ppm and 0.074 ppm were found in/ on controls 7 terbacil residues of 0.182 ppm and 0.062 ppm were found in/ on controls; the study stated that it is possible that the treated samples were labeled as untreated and the untreated samples were labeled as treated ( there is no evidence to confirm this suspicion) 8 study indicate two field trials conducted in Weslaco, TX; HED considers this as a single field trial as they were conducted on the same farm using the same application date, equipment, and watermelon variety Table C. 6. Summary of Residue Data from Crop Field Trials with Metaflumizone Commodity App. Rate ( lb ai/ acre) PHI ( days) Analyte Residue Levels in Metaflumizone Equivalents ( ppm) 1 n Min. Max. HAFT3 Median Mean Std. Dev.

water melon 1 x 0.248 0.297 69 94 terbacil1 12 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50  metabolite A2 12 < 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30  metabolite B 12 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10  metabolite C 12 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10  1 The terbacil LOQ was 0.50 ppm due to residues in/ on controls collected from the field trials of < 0.001 0.182 ppm (< 0.001 ppm ( n= 2), 0.047 0.078 ppm ( n= 8), 0.134 ppm, and 0.182 ppm); the petitioner indicated that it is possible that the controls samples which resulted in terbacil residues of 0.134 ppm and 0.182 ppm may have been treated samples but were mislabeled as untreated; no evidence to confirm this suspicion is available. HED notes that if the 0.134 ppm and 0.182 ppm control samples are excluded and based on the residues in/ on the remaining control samples, a terbacil LOQ of at least 0.20 ppm would be established ( assumes LOQ = 3x the background). 2 The LOQ for metabolite A was 0.30 ppm due to unacceptable recoveries at 0.10 ppm ( see Table C. 1). 3 HAFT = Highest Average Field Trial. Terbacil/ PC Code 012701/ Dupont DACO 7.4.1/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial  watermelon DP Barcode: D313911 MRID No. 46007101 Page 9 of 10 D. CONCLUSION Five watermelon trials were conducted in Regions 2 ( n= 2), 3 ( n= 1), 6 ( n= 1), and 10 ( n= 1). At each field trial, the plants were treated with a single broadcast spray application of a 80% WP terbacil formulation at 0.248 0.297 lb ai/ acre. Applications were made after planting but prior to crop emergence. Duplicate control and treated samples were collected at maturity, 69 94 days after application.

The harvested samples were analyzed for residues of terbacil, metabolite A, metabolite B, and metabolite C using an adequately validated method. Based on the lowest method validation level which resulted in acceptable recoveries, the LOQ for terbacil, metabolite B, and metabolite C is 0.10 ppm and the LOQ for metabolite A is 0.30 ppm ( unacceptable recoveries at 0.10 ppm). Since significant terbacil residues were found in/ on control samples from the field trials (< 0.001 ppm ( n= 2), 0.047 0.078 ppm ( n= 8), 0.134 ppm, and 0.182 ppm), the study indicated a LOQ of 0.50 ppm for terbacil. The study indicated that it is possible that the controls samples which resulted in terbacil residues of 0.134 ppm and 0.182 ppm may have been treated samples but were mislabeled as untreated; no evidence to confirm this suspicion is available. HED notes that if the 0.134 ppm and 0.182 ppm control samples are excluded and based on the residues in/ on the remaining control samples, a terbacil LOQ of at least 0.20 ppm would be established ( assumes LOQ = 3x the background). Adequate storage stability data are available to validate the storage intervals.

Residues of terbacil, metabolite A, metabolite B, and metabolite C were < LOQ in/ on all samples (< 0.50 ppm, < 0.30 ppm, < 0.10 ppm, and < 0.10 ppm, respectively). Since the terbacil LOQ is based on the detection of terbacil residues in/ on field trial control samples at 0.134 ppm and 0.182 ppm and since the study indicated that these samples may have been treated samples mislabeled as untreated samples, terbacil residues which were < LOQ are reported (< 0.001 0.230 ppm).

E. REFERENCES HED RED, D. Miller, 18 Dec 1996 F. DOCUMENT TRACKING RDI: RAB1 Chemists ( 21 Dec 2005) T. Bloem: 806R: CM# 2: 703 605 0217: 7590C Template Version September 2003 Attachment 1: Chemical Structures Terbacil/ PC Code 012701/ Dupont DACO 7.4.1/ OPPTS 860.1500/ OECD IIA 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and IIIA 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 Crop Field Trial  watermelon DP Barcode: D313911 MRID No. 46007101 Page 10 of 10 N HN O C( CH3) 3 O Cl H3C N HN O C( CH3) 3 O Cl HOH2C N N O Cl HOH2C O H3C CH3 N N O Cl H3C O H3C CH3 Attachment 1: Chemical Structures Name Structure terbacil 3 tert butyl 5 chloro 6 methyluracil 5 chloro 3( 1,1 dimethylethyl) 6 methyl 2,4( 1H, 3H) pyrimidinedi one metabolite A 3 tert butyl 5 chloro 6 hydroxymethyluracil metabolite B 6 chloro 2,3 dihydro 7 hydroxymethyl 3,3 dimethyl 5Hoxazolo ( 3,2 a) pyrimidin 5 one metabolite C 6 chloro 2,3 dihydro 3,3,7 trimethyl 5H oxazolo ( 3,2 a) pyrimidin 5 one


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 147 (Friday, July 31, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 45699]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18821]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on a Request for a Change in Use From
Aeronautical to Non-Aeronautical To Provide for the Use of an Existing
Facility for Manufacturing Purposes, at Elmira/Corning Regional
Airport, Horseheads, NY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment for a
change in use from aeronautical to non-aeronautical to provide for the
use of an existing facility for manufacturing purposes, at Elmira/
Corning Regional Airport, Horseheads, NY.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 31, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the following address: Ann Crook, Director of Aviation, Elmira/Corning
Regional Airport, 276 Sing Sing Road, Suite 1, Horseheads, NY 14845,
(607) 739-5621 and at the FAA New York Airports District Office: Evelyn
Martinez, Manager, New York Airports District Office, 1 Aviation Plaza,
Jamaica, NY 11434,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Allen, Community Planner, New
York Airports District Office, location listed above.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The request for a change in use from aeronautical to non-
aeronautical to provide for the use of an existing facility for
manufacturing purposes may be reviewed in person at the New York
Airports District Office located at 159-30 Rockaway Blvd., Suite 111,
Jamaica, NY 11434.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment for a change
in use from aeronautical to non-aeronautical to provide for the use of
an existing facility for manufacturing purposes, at Elmira/Corning
Regional Airport under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47125(a). Based on a
full review, the FAA determined that the request for a change in use
from aeronautical to non-aeronautical to provide for the use of an
existing facility for manufacturing purposes, at Elmira/Corning
Regional Airport, Horseheads, NY., met the procedural requirements.

The Following Is a Brief Overview of the Request

    The airport sponsor is requesting a change in use from aeronautical
to non-aeronautical for a 10.27 acre site located along Kahler Road,
including an existing 96,000 square foot manufacturing facility, 5,000
square foot storage hangar, and adjoining 187,500 square foot parking
lot with capacity for 332 parking stalls. In addition, the proposal
includes a 6,400 square foot expansion to the existing facility to
support administrative and engineering offices. The site would be
utilized for glass manufacturing operations by a privately owned
company. There is currently no short or long term aeronautical demand
for the site, or interest from an aeronautical tenant to occupy the
space. The Airport will structure a land lease with the prospective
tenant based on fair market value, along with the fee simple sale of
the buildings. All proceeds generated from the lease agreement and fee
simple sale must be used exclusively by the airport in accordance with
49 U.S.C. 47107(b) and the FAA's policy on revenue use.
    Any person may inspect the request by appointment at the FAA office
address listed above. Interested persons are invited to comment on the
proposed change of use from aeronautical to non-aeronautical. All
comments will be considered by the FAA to the extent practicable.

    Issued in Jamaica, New York, July 27, 2015.
Evelyn Martinez,
Manager, New York Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2015-18821 Filed 7-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P