[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 153 (Monday, August 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 47916]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19555]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-2270-000]

Thunder Spirit Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Thunder Spirit Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 24, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 4, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-19555 Filed 8-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

                                                  OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND
                                                                                POLLUTION PREVENTION
MEMORANDUM

Date:	14-August-2013

Subject:	Linuron.  Petition for the Establishment of Permanent Tolerances and Registration for Use on Coriander, Dill, Parsley, Pea (Dry), and Horseradish; and Submission of Residue Analytical Methods of Plants and Animal Matrices.  Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data.

PC Code:  035506
DP Barcodes:  D404359, D411652
Decision No.:  469722
Registration No.:  61842-23
Petition No.:  2E8083
Regulatory Action:  Section 3
Risk Assessment Type:  NA
Case No.:  NA
TXR No.:  NA
CAS No.:  330-55-2
MRID No.:  See Appendix A
40 CFR:§180.184

From:	Nancy Tsaur, Chemist
	Risk Assessment Branch 3 (RAB3)
	Health Effects Division (7509P)

Through:	Steve Funk, Senior Chemist
	Risk Assessment Branch 3 (RAB3)
	Health Effects Division (7509P)

To: 	Kristin Rury, Biologist, Risk Assessor
	Risk Assessment Branch 3 (RAB3)
	Health Effects Division (7509P)

                               Table of Contents

1.0	Executive Summary	3
2.0	Regulatory Recommendations	3
2.1	Tolerance Considerations	3
2.1.1	Enforcement Analytical Method	3
2.1.2	Recommended Tolerances	4
2.2.3	Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances	5
2.2.4	International Harmonization	5
3.0	Introduction	5
3.1	Chemical Identity	6
3.2	Physical/Chemical Characteristics	6
3.3	Pesticide Use Pattern/Directions for Use (860.1200)	7
4.0	Metabolite/Degradate Residue Profile	8
4.1	Nature of the Residue	8
4.2	Comparison of Metabolic Pathways	9
4.3	Residues of Concern Summary and Rationale	9
5.0	Residue Profile	10
5.1	Residue Analytical Methods (860.1340)	10
5.2	Submittal of Analytical Reference Standards (860.1650)	11
5.3	Storage Stability (860.1380)	11
5.4	Residue Data	12
5.4.1	Crop Field Trials (860.1500)	12
5.4.2	Meat, Milk, Poultry and Eggs (860.1480)	13
5.5	Food Residue Profile	13
6.0	Tolerance Derivation	13
Appendix A.  Summary of Submitted Residue Chemistry Studies	15
Appendix B.  International Residue Limits Table for Linuron	16
Appendix C.  OECD MRL Calculation Procedure Inputs/Outputs	17

1.0	Executive Summary

Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4) has submitted a petition (PP#2E8083) for tolerances on coriander, dill, parsley, pea (dry), and horseradish; and has proposed to add these uses to the Tessenderlo Kerley label for Lorox(R) DF (EPA Reg. No. 61842-23).  IR-4 has submitted crop field trials utilizing comparable formulations, all of which consist of 50% active ingredient (ai) in a dry flowable formulation.  The residue chemistry database is adequate for tolerance assessment of the proposed uses.

Based on residues found in forage/foliage from three plant metabolism studies where the active ingredient was applied in a soil-directed fashion early in the growing season, linuron is understood to have systemic activity in plants.  The field trials indicate that finite residues are found in food commodities and that the residues concentrate upon drying herbs and/or processing dill for oil.  It has been shown that linuron and its metabolites, including unknown metabolites characterized as polar, can be converted quantitatively to 3,-4-dichloroaniline (3,4-DCA).  Therefore, linuron can be regulated by using the enforcement analytical method in which identified metabolites, unidentified polar components, and bound residues in plant and animal commodities are hydrolyzed to 3,4-DCA.  The total residue convertible to 3,4-DCA will be compared to the reference dose for parent linuron for purposes of dietary risk assessment.

Concomitant with this IR-4 petition, additional analytical method data have been submitted by Tessenderlo Kerley to support the newly proposed uses.  A new enforcement method for plant and livestock commodities was previously required as conditional data (K. Rury, DP375451, 04/01/2010).  A high performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS/MS) method based on extraction of residues and identification of parent and specific metabolites has been submitted.   Also submitted was a method that hydrolyzes commodities with base to transform the total linuron residue to 3,4-DCA.  Gas chromatography with mass spectrometry detection (GC/MS) is used to quantitate the 3,4-DCA.   Independent laboratory validation of the latter method has been provided.   In reviewing these data, HED has determined that the continued use of a common moiety definition (1,3-dichloraniline) is appropriate, and that the validated GC/MS method for 3,4-DCA will be adequate for tolerance enforcement purposes.  Thus, the requirement for additional enforcement analytical methods is fulfilled.

2.0	Regulatory Recommendations

HED has examined the residue chemistry database for linuron and concluded that, provided a revised label and a revised Section F, there are no residue chemistry deficiencies that would preclude granting Section 3 registration for the requested crop commodity uses of linuron, or establishment of tolerances for residues of linuron.  The specific tolerance recommendations are discussed in Section 2.1.2.

2.1	Tolerance Considerations

2.1.1	Enforcement Analytical Method

Various acceptable enforcement methods are available.

For linuron residues of concern in plant commodities, Method ABC-68406-M, is available and suitable for the enforcement of tolerances.  This method involves reflux of crop samples in strong base to hydrolyze residues of linuron and its metabolites to 3,4-DCA.  Then, 3,4-DCA is analyzed by gas chromatography with mass spectrometry detection (GC/MS).  Based on the lowest level of method validation (LLMV) from the independent laboratory validation (ILV) study, the validated limit of quantitation (LOQ) is 0.01 ppm for linuron and its metabolites hydrolyzable to 3,4-DCA in/on oily (soybean seed), watery (celery), and starch (potato) crop matrices.

In addition, Method ABC-65790 is a confirmatory method that is also available that may be used to confirm results from the use of Method ABC-68406-M.  In this method, extractions are conducted with methanol and each analyte is analyzed by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS).  This method separately determines residues of linuron and metabolites 3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1-methylurea (DCPMU), N-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)urea (DCPU), and desmethyl linuron in crop commodities.  Based on the LLMV, the validated LOQ is 0.01 ppm each for linuron, DCPMU, DCPU, and desmethyl linuron.

For linuron residues of concern in livestock commodities Method ABC-67638-M is available and suitable for the enforcement of tolerances.  This method involves reflux of livestock commodity samples in strong base to hydrolyze residues of linuron and its metabolites to 3,4-dichloroaniline (3,4-DCA).  Then, 3,4-DCA is analyzed by gas chromatography with mass spectrometry detection (GC/MS).  Based on the LLMV, the validated LOQ is 0.01 ppm for linuron and its metabolites hydrolyzable to 3,4-DCA in milk, muscle, and liver.

2.1.2	Recommended Tolerances

In addition to the recommended tolerances listed below in Table 2.2.2, the tolerance with regional registration under 40 CFR §180.184(c) for parsley, leaves (0.25 ppm) should be deleted.

Table 2.2.2.  Tolerance Summary for Linuron.
                                   Commodity
                     Established/Proposed Tolerance (ppm)
                        HED-Recommended Tolerance (ppm)
                                   Comments
                        (correct commodity definition)
                            Cilantro, fresh leaves
                                      3.0
                                      1.5
                               coriander, leaves
                            Cilantro, dried leaves
                                      27
                                      10
                            coriander, dried leaves
                                Coriander, seed
                                     0.01
                                     0.05

                            Dillweed, fresh leaves
                                      1.5
                                      0.6

                            Dillweed, dried leaves
                                      7.1
                                      3.0

                                  Dill, seed
                                      0.3
                                      0.5

                                   Dill, oil
                                      4.8
                                      2.0

                                  Horseradish
                                     0.05
                                     0.05

                                Parsley, leaves
                                      3.0
                                      4.0

                             Parsley, dried leaves
                                      8.3
                                      3.0

                                Pea, dry, seed
                                     0.08
                                     0.06

2.2.3	Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

All of the petitioned-for tolerance levels(except for horseradish) must be revised to reflect the tolerance levels recommended by HED for linuron (3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-1-methylurea) and its metabolites convertible to 3,4-dichloroaniline, calculated as linuron, in or on the commodities.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) calculation procedures were used to calculate the tolerance levels for the following three commodities: cilantro, fresh leaves; dillweed, fresh leaves; and pea, dry, seed.  Based on the OECD calculations, all three tolerance levels should be decreased.

Instead of using the OECD calculator due to a limited number of field trials, the formula of 5X the mean was used to establish tolerance levels for the following three commodities: coriander, seed; dill, seed; and parsley, leaves.  Based on this calculation method, all three tolerance levels should be increased.

For the dried herbs (cilantro, dillweed, and parsley) and the dill oil, the formula of the highest average field trial (HAFT) multiplied by the concentration factor was used to calculate the recommended tolerance levels (the concentration factors were derived from dividing the average dried/oil commodity residue by the average fresh commodity residue).  Based on this calculation method, all four tolerance levels should be decreased.

2.2.4	International Harmonization

There are no established maximum residue limits (MRLs) for linuron in Codex for any agricultural commodity.  Furthermore, no Canadian or Mexican MRLs have been established for linuron.  Therefore, there are no harmonization issues that exist with respect to U.S. tolerances.

2.3	Label Recommendations

Since there are livestock feed items associated with field pea, the following restriction should be added to the label: "Do not apply to field pea used for livestock feed."

3.0	Introduction

Linuron is a selective phenylurea herbicide used to control broadleaf weeds and annual grasses by systemically inhibiting photosynthesis.  It may be applied pre-plant, pre-emergence, post-emergence or post-transplant to various field crops and noncrop areas.

3.1	Chemical Identity

Table 3.1.  Linuron Nomenclature.
Compound

Common name
Linuron
Company experimental name
DPX-Z0326
IUPAC name
3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-1-methylurea
CAS name
N`-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-N-methoxy-N-methylurea
CAS #
330-55-2
End-use product/EP

Metabolite

Common name
DCPMU
Chemical name
3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1-methylurea
Metabolite

Common name
DCPU
Chemical name
N-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)urea
Metabolite

Common name
Desmethyl linuron
Chemical name
N-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-N`-methoxyurea

3.2	Physical/Chemical Characteristics

Linuron is an off-white powder with a molecular weight of 249.1 g/mol, which indicates that the potential to cross biological barriers, such as the skin, is somewhat limited.  Furthermore, the low log of the octanol/water partition coefficient (log Pow = 2.76 at 25C) suggests low potential for dermal absorption; the relatively low water solubility and low lipophilic potential, indicate that linuron is not likely to bioaccumulate.  The vapor pressure for linuron is low (3.011x10[-7] mm Hg at 25C), and linuron is considered relatively insoluble in water. The Henry's Law constant was calculated to be 1.97x10[-9] atm·m[3]/mol.  Thus, linuron is unlikely to volatilize significantly, and inhalation via chemical vaporization is unlikely.

Linuron is moderately persistent with an aerobic soil metabolism half-life ranging from 57 to 100 days.  Because parent linuron is sufficiently persistent and may be mobile under certain environmental conditions, it has the potential to impact ground water quality.  More detailed physicochemical properties of the technical grade of linuron are summarized in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2.  Physicochemical Properties of the Technical Grade Test Compound Linuron.
Parameter
Value
Reference
Molecular weight (g/mole)
249.1
42213301
Melting point/range
91-94+-1°C
42213301
pH
6.98, 7.09 for a 0.2% solution and 9.38, 9.41, for a 2.5% solution at 22.5+-0.5C
42213301
Density
1.4963 g/mL at 22.3+-0.5C
(air comparison pycnometer)
42213301
Water solubility (20.5 +- 0.5 C)
5.88x10[-3] g/100 mL
42213301
Solvent solubility (20 C)
dichloromethane	44.1 g/100 mL
toluene	7.91 g/100 mL
methanol	12.6 g/100 mL
hexane	0.220 g/100 mL
42213301
Vapor pressure at 25°C
4.015x10[-5] Pa
3.011x10[-7] mm Hg
42213303
Henry's Law Constant at 25°C
1.97x10[-9] atm·m[3]/mol
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov
Dissociation constant (pKa)
dissociation constant could not be determined; physical and chemical properties deemed all methods in OECD guidelines inappropriate
42213302
Octanol/water partition coefficient Log(KOW)
8.2x10[2] at 23+-1C (GC method)
log Pow = 2.76
42213301

3.3	Pesticide Use Pattern/Directions for Use (860.1200)

IR-4 is proposing new uses for the 50% DF formulation Lorox(R) DF (EPA Reg. No. 61842-23).  The use directions are summarized below in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3.  Summary of Proposed Directions for Use of Linuron (Lorox(R) DF, EPA Reg. No. 61842-23).
                       Application, Type, and Equipment
                                   App Rate
                                   (lb ai/A)
                                    Timing
                            Max No. App per Season
                            Max. Seasonal App Rate
                                   (lb ai/A)
                                      PHI
                                    (days)
                    Product Use Directions and Limitations
                                   Coriander
                                   Broadcast

                              Ground, Chemigation
                                   0.5 - 1.0
                                 preemergence
                                       1
                                      2.0
                              East of Rocky Mtns

                                      1.5
                              West of Rocky Mtns
                                      21
Do not apply by air.  Do not apply to sand or loamy sand soil types to avoid crop injury.  Do not use on soils with less than 1% organic matter to avoid crop injury.  Do not exceed 4 lbs. LOROX(R) DF per acre per year East of Rocky Mountains.  Do not exceed 3 lbs. LOROX(R) DF per acre per year West of Rocky Mountains.  Additional applications allowed, but do not exceed maximum rate.  Do not apply within 155 days of harvest for seed.

                                   0.5 - 1.0
                                 postemergence
                                       2

                                     Dill
                                   Broadcast

                              Ground, Chemigation
                                      1.0
                                 preemergence
                                       1
                                      2.0
                              East of Rocky Mtns

                                      1.5
                              West of Rocky Mtns
                                      21
Do not apply by air.  Do not apply to sand or loamy sand soil types to avoid crop injury.  Do not use on soils with less than 1% organic matter to avoid crop injury.  Do not exceed 4 lbs. LOROX(R) DF per acre per year East of Rocky Mountains.  Do not exceed 3 lbs. LOROX(R) DF per acre per year West of Rocky Mountains.  Additional applications allowed, but do not exceed maximum rate.

                                   0.5 - 1.0
                                 postemergence
                                       2

                                    Parsley
                                   Broadcast

                              Ground, Chemigation
                                   0.5 - 1.5
                                 preemergence
                                       1
                                      1.5
                                      30
Do not apply by air.  Apply after planting, but before the crop emerges.  Do not exceed a total of 3 lbs. of LOROX(R) DF per acre per season.  Use lower rates on coarse soils and higher rates on heavier soils.

                                      0.5
                                 postemergence
                                       1
                                      0.5

              Parsley Grown for Seed (Oregon and Washington Only)
                                   Broadcast

                              Ground, Chemigation
                                   0.5 - 1.0
                                 preemergence
                                       2
                                      2.0
                                      NA
Do not apply by air.  For best results apply preemergence to weeds or early postemergence while weeds are small.  Wait at least 21 days between applications.  Do not make more than two applications in the first growing season and do not make more than two applications in the second growing season.
                                   Pea (Dry)
                                   Broadcast

                              Ground, Chemigation
                                      1.0
                                 preemergence
                                       1
                                      1.0
                                      NA
Do not apply by air.  Do not apply to sand or loamy sand soil types.  Do not use on soils with less than 1% organic matter.  Apply post planting but preemergence to the crop.  Use lower rates on coarse soils and higher rates on heavier soils.
                                  Horseradish
                                   Broadcast

                              Ground, Chemigation
                                      1.5
                                 preemergence
                                       1
                                      1.5
                                      NA
Do not apply by air.  Apply after planting or during dormancy, but before the leaves emerge in spring.  Use lower rates on lighter soils and higher rates on heavier soils.

Conclusions:  The submitted use directions are adequate to allow evaluation of the residue data relative to the proposed use pattern for coriander, dill, parsley, pea (dry), and horseradish.

4.0	Metabolite/Degradate Residue Profile

4.1	Nature of the Residue

New metabolism data were not submitted to support this registration request.  The qualitative nature of the residue in plants and animals is adequately understood.  The chemical structures of the metabolites of concern are listed in Table 3.1.

Plant metabolism studies show the major plant metabolites to be DCPMU and DCPU.  There was a significant amount of unidentified polar components in corn, potato, and soybean plant metabolism studies; however, it was concluded that the components in plants are hydrolyzable to 3,4-dichloroaniline (3,4-DCA).  There was almost quantitative conversion (via base hydrolysis) of the total radioactive residue (TRR) to 3,4-DCA in the metabolism studies.

In animals, linuron is metabolized to DCPU and hydroxy-norlinuron (through DCPMU and desmethyl-linuron intermediates).  Small amounts of 3,4-DCA were detected in both the corn and poultry studies.

Water degradates identified in linuron aerobic soil metabolism are the same as the identified plant metabolites.

4.2	Comparison of Metabolic Pathways

The metabolic pathways in plants and livestock are similar.   Linuron is converted to DCPMU, DCPU, hydroxy-norlinuron, and unidentified polar metabolites, all of which may be converted to 3,4-DCA via base hydrolysis..

Metabolism studies also illustrate the distribution of residues of linuron within plant and animals.  Radiolabeled [14]C-linuron equivalents were found at the highest levels in the forage or foliage of corn, potato, and soybean following early season soil-directed application of linuron.  Detectable residues (0.01  -  0.03 ppm) were also found in the potato tuber and corn grain, and quantifiable residues were found in soybean seed.  Linuron and/or its metabolites are systemic.

 In animals, the highest levels of [14]C-linuron equivalents were found in the liver of both goat and poultry.  No intact linuron (<0.001 ppm) was detected in the milk, tissues, or urine of the test animals, except egg yolk.  Approximately 95% of the radioactivity in milk was characterized as polar metabolites.

For both livestock and plant commodities, the residues listed in the tolerance expression are the same as those that will be included in the dietary risk assessment, linuron and metabolites convertible to 3,4-DCA.  This essentially encompasses the entire total radioactive residues from plant and livestock metabolism studies.

In rats, the major metabolites identified in the urine were hydroxy-norlinuron, DCPU, and DCPMU; and those in feces were hydroxy-norlinuron and DCPU.  The major metabolites DCPU and DCPMU were identified in the rat metabolism study, in both plant and animal metabolism studies, and as water metabolites in the aerobic soil metabolism study.   These metabolites, in addition to desmethyl-linuron, are the metabolites of toxicological concern referenced in the tolerance expression and considered in this risk assessment.  Neither hydroxy-3,4-dichloroanaline, 3,4-dichloroanaline nor 3,3',4,4'-tetrachloroazobenzene (TCAB) were present in any of the samples in the rat metabolism study.

4.3	Residues of Concern Summary and Rationale
D. McNeilly. 11/17/1993. Linuron Plant and Animal Metabolism: Results of the HED Metabolism Committee Meetings held October 21, and October 29, 1993.  MARC Decision Memo.

The residue definitions for enforcement of tolerance and for risk assessment are identical, namely, linuron and metabolites convertible to 3,4-DCA.

The terminal residues of concern in plants and animals are linuron (parent) and metabolites convertible to 3,4-DCA including DCPMU, DCPU, desmethyl linuron, and hydroxy-norlinuron.  3,4-DCA is not of regulatory concern in connection with the registered use of linuron due to the very low levels at which the chemical is detected in plants and animals (<0.01ppm).  Metabolites convertible to 3,4-DCA are not likely to be more toxic than the parent compound.  Linuron can therefore be regulated by using the enforcement analytical method in which known metabolites and unidentified polar components in plants and bound residues in animal tissues are hydrolyzed to 3,4-DCA.  The total residue convertible to 3,4-DCA will be compared to the reference dose for parent linuron for purposes of dietary risk assessment.

The linuron drinking water exposure assessment is based upon review of environmental fate studies for parent linuron, modeling and monitoring results for parent linuron, and modeling results for the degradates of linuron based upon parent linuron model input parameters.  Parent linuron appears to be moderately persistent and relatively immobile.  Water degradates identified in the linuron aerobic soil metabolism study are desmethyl linuron, DCPMU, and DCPU.  The degradate 3,4-DCA was not included in the water assessment as it was not detected in the aerobic soil metabolism study (0.01 ppm detection limit).  According to acceptable fate studies, 3,4-DCA is formed under anaerobic aquatic conditions rarely found in the environment and is not relevant to drinking water assessment.  The environmental fate assessment for linuron is incomplete and tentative because information on the persistence, mobility and dissipation pathways of several degradates of linuron is not available.  However, none of the linuron water degradates are present at levels greater than 10% of the applied parent, and therefore not considered major water metabolites.

Table 4.3.  Summary of Metabolites and Degradates to be included in the Risk Assessment and Tolerance Expression
Matrix
Residues included in Risk Assessment
Residues included in Tolerance Expression
Plants
Primary Crop
linuron and
metabolites convertible to 3,4-DCA
linuron and metabolites convertible to 3,4-DCA

Rotational Crop

Livestock
Ruminant

Poultry

Drinking Water

Not Applicable

5.0	Residue Profile

5.1	Residue Analytical Methods (860.1340)

Various adequately validated analytical methods are now available for linuron.

For linuron residues of concern in plant commodities, Method ABC-68406-M is available and suitable for residue collection as well as enforcement of tolerances.  This method has been used previously for data collection and is used with the current field trial submissions.  This method involves reflux of crop samples in strong base to hydrolyze residues of linuron and its metabolites to 3,4-DCA.  Then, 3,4-DCA GC/MS.  Based on the LLMV from the ILV study, the validated LOQ is 0.01 ppm for linuron and its metabolites hydrolyzable to 3,4-DCA in/on oily (soybean seed), watery (celery), and starch (potato) crop matrices.

In addition, Method ABC-65790 was presented.  It is a multi-residue method that is suitable for screening for enforcement of tolerances for linuron residues in plant commodities.  It may also be used as a confirmatory method for Method ABC-68406.  In this method, extractions are conducted with methanol and each analyte is analyzed by LC/MS/MS.  This method separately determines residues of linuron and metabolites DCPMU, DCPU, and desmethyl linuron in crop commodities.  Based on the LLMV, the validated LOQ is 0.01 ppm each for linuron, DCPMU, DCPU, and desmethyl linuron.  Transition ions monitored were:  m/z 249-->160 for linuron, m/z 219-->127 for DCPMU, m/z 205-->127 for DCPU, and m/z 235-->160 for desmethyl linuron.  HED notes that this method is not acceptable as the primary enforcement method because of the following reasons: (1) the residue definition contains components in addition to those determined; and (2) the method does not include a secondary ion transition for each analyte, which is required for enforcement methods.

For linuron residues of concern in livestock commodities Method, ABC-67638-M, is available and suitable for residue collection as well as enforcement of tolerances.  This method involves reflux of livestock commodity samples in strong base to hydrolyze residues of linuron and its metabolites to 3,4-DCA.  Then, 3,4-DCA is analyzed by GC/MS.  Based on the LLMV, the validated LOQ is 0.01 ppm for linuron and its metabolites hydrolyzable to 3,4-DCA in milk, muscle, and liver.

Conclusions.  The analytical methods, ABC-68406-M and ABC-67638-M, are adequate for enforcement of the tolerance expression and they been validated.

5.2	Submittal of Analytical Reference Standards (860.1650)

The analytical reference standard of linuron at the EPA National Pesticide Standards Repository, expired as of April 18, 2013.  The registrant must send an updated COA, or five grams of new material to the Repository as soon as possible.  The reference standard can be sent to the Analytical Chemistry Branch, to the attention of either Theresa Cole or Thuy Nguyen, at the address listed below:
      USEPA
      National Pesticide Standards Repository/Analytical Chemistry Branch/OPP
      701 Mapes Road
      Fort George G. Meade, MD  20755-5350

The full 9 digit zip code is mandatory or the mail will be returned to the sender.

5.3	Storage Stability (860.1380)

The storage durations and conditions of samples from the submitted crop field trials are presented in Table 5.3.  Freezer storage stability data were generated concurrently with the crop field trials.  Data showed that linuron residues were stable in all matrices under frozen storage for the duration of the storage period.

Table 5.3  Stability of  Linuron Residues in Following Storage.
                                    Matrix
                              Storage Temperature
                            Actual Storage Duration
                                    (days)
               Interval of Demonstrated Storage Stability (days)
                       Coriander Fresh Leaves and Stems
                                   -21+-7°C
                                   378 - 514
                                      530
                       Coriander Dried Leaves and Stems

                                      468
                                      427
                                Coriander Seed

                                      271
                                      288
                          Dill Fresh Leaves and Stems

                                   64 - 165
                                      212
                          Dill Dried Leaves and Stems

                                      164
                                      160
                                   Dill Seed

                                   31 - 128
                                      193
                                   Dill Oil

                                      147
                                      139
                        Parsley Fresh Leaves and Stems

                                      264
                                      264
                        Parsley Dried Leaves and Stems

                                      220
                                      220
                                   Pea (Dry)

                                   125 - 138
                                   145 - 147
                                  Horseradish

                                    62 - 70
                                    62 - 70

Conclusions: The storage stability data are adequate to support the storage intervals and conditions for the residue samples of coriander, dill, parsley, pea (dry), and horseradish from the field trials.

5.4	Residue Data

5.4.1	Crop Field Trials (860.1500)
DER References: MRIDs 48928501, 48928502, 48928503, 48928504, 45633501, 45633502

All of the field trials were conducted according to the proposed label use directions in the appropriate representative geographical regions.  Adjuvants were not used in any of the field trials.  Residue decline studies were not conducted.

Table 5.4.1.  Summary of Residues from Field Trials with Linuron.
                                  Crop Matrix
                                  Analyte[b]
                                 Applic. Rate
                                 (lb ai/acre)
                                  PHI (days)
                                       n
                             Residues[a][,b] (ppm)

                                     Min.
                                     Max.
                                     HAFT
                                     Mean
                                      SD
 Coriander: Proposed Use = 2.0 lb ai/acre total application rate, 21-day PHI.
                            Fresh Leaves and Stems
                                    Linuron
                                 1.997 - 2.118
                                     19-21
                                       8
                                     0.08
                                     1.14
                                     1.055
                                     0.65
                                      0.4
                            Dried Leaves and Stems

                                      19
                                       1
                                      8.5
                                      NA
                                      NA
                                      NA
                                     Seed

                                      155
                                       2
                                   <0.01
                                      NA
                                      NA
                                      NA
    Dill: Proposed Use = 2.0 lb ai/acre total application rate, 21-day PHI.
                            Fresh Leaves and Stems
                                    Linuron
                                 2.005 - 2.026
                                    20 - 22
                                       7
                                      0.3
                                     0.67
                                     0.56
                                     0.48
                                      0.1
                            Dried Leaves and Stems

                                      22
                                       2
                                      1.8
                                      3.5
                                     2.65
                                     2.65
                                      1.2
                                     Seed

                                    59 - 85
                                       4
                                     0.06
                                     0.12
                                     0.12
                                     0.09
                                     0.03
                                      Oil

                                      48
                                       1
                                      1.8
                                      NA
                                      NA
                                      NA
  Parsley: Proposed Use = 1.5 lb ai/acre total application rate, 30-day PHI.
                            Fresh Leaves and Stems
                                    Linuron
                                     1.510
                                    29 - 32
                                       4
                                     0.43
                                      1.3
                                     1.02
                                     0.75
                                     0.387
                            Dried Leaves and Stems

                                     1.511
                                      29
                                       1
                                      2.8
                                      2.8
                                      2.8
                                      NA
Pea (Dry): Proposed Use = 1.0 lb ai/acre total application rate, unspecified PHI.
                                   Pea (Dry)

                                 0.972 - 1.015
                                    65 - 92
                                      12
                                   <0.01
                                     0.052
                                     0.051
                                     0.014
                                     0.018
Horseradish: Proposed Use = 1.5 lb ai/acre total application rate, unspecified PHI.
                                     Roots
                                    Linuron
                                 1.43  -  1.55
                                   77 - 100

                                   <0.05
                                      NA
                                      NA
                                      NA
a	HAFT = highest average field trial.  SD = Standard Deviation.  For samples with no detectable residues (< 0.01 ppm) the LOQ value (0.01 ppm) was used to calculate the Mean and Standard Deviation.
b	Residues were converted to and measured as 3,4-DCA.  Values were converted to linuron equivalents.

Conclusions:  The available residue data are acceptable and reflect the proposed use patterns provided in Section B.  The number and geographical locations of the field trials are in accordance with the test guidelines.  Furthermore, an acceptable method was used for residue quantitation and the data are supported by adequate storage stability data.

5.4.2	Meat, Milk, Poultry and Eggs (860.1480)

There are no feed items associated with this current petition.  Cowpea commodities would affect the dietary burden of cattle but since they are a bean rather than a pea, they are not included in the petition for dry peas.  Dry peas only includes the following commodities listed under 40 CFR§180.1(g): Cajanus cajan (includes pigeon pea); Cicerspp. (includes chickpea and garbanzo bean); Lens culinaris (lentil);Pisumspp. (includes dwarf pea, garden pea, green pea, English pea, field pea, and edible pod pea).  Therefore, the previous livestock dietary intake calculations and resulting tolerance recommendations are not changed.  However, since there are livestock feed items associated with field pea, the following restriction should be added to the label: " Do not apply to field pea used for livestock feed."

5.5	Food Residue Profile

The residue data on coriander, dill, parsley, pea (dry), and horseradish are adequate for tolerance assessment and for use in dietary risk assessment.  Based on detectable residues found in forage/foliage of a few metabolism studies, linuron is assumed to have systemic activity in plants.  Finite residues of linuron and/or its metabolites are anticipated on food and feed commodities, even from early season soil-directed applications.   Transfer to livestock commodities has been demonstrated, although the residue is primarily metabolites and unidentified polar components.   The analytical methods account for the total residue by conversion of parent, metabolites, and polar, and bound (non-releasable) components to 3,4-DCA.

6.0	Tolerance Derivation

As shown in Appendix C, the statistical goal of the OECD calculation procedures is to produce an MRL proposal in the region of the 95[th] percentile of the underlying residues distribution.

Coriander (MRID 48928501)
The dataset used to establish a tolerance for linuron consisted of field trial data on coriander representing two applications within -5% to +10% of 1 lb ai/A per application for a total of 2 lb ai/A per crop, and 19- to 21-day PHIs.  The average residue values used to calculate the tolerance are provided below.  Combined residues of linuron and its metabolites hydrolyzed to 2,4-DCA were quantifiable (LOQ = 0.01 ppm) in/on samples.  Data from four field trials were used in the OECD tolerance calculation procedures for fresh coriander, resulting in a recommended tolerance of 1.5 ppm.  For dried coriander, a 9X concentration factor was derived from a single residue field trial where the coriander was dried, resulting in a recommended tolerance of 10 ppm (calculated by: HAFT of fresh coriander residue 1.055 ppm x concentration factor 9).  For coriander seed, no detectable residues were found, resulting in a recommended tolerance of 0.05 ppm (calculated by: 5 x LOQ 0.01 ppm).

Dill (MRID 48928502)
The dataset used to establish a tolerance for linuron consisted of field trial data on dill representing two applications within -5% to +10% of 1 lb ai/A per application for a total of 2 lb ai/A per crop, and 20- to 22- day PHIs.  The average residue values used to calculate the tolerance are provided below.  Combined residues of linuron and its metabolites hydrolyzed to3,4-DCA were quantifiable (LOQ = 0.01 ppm) in/on all samples.  Data from three field trials were used in the OECD tolerance calculation procedures for fresh dill, resulting in a recommended tolerance of 0.6 ppm.  For dried dill, a 4.73X concentration factor was derived from a single residue field trial where the dill was dried, resulting in a recommended tolerance of 3.0 ppm (calculated by: HAFT of fresh dill 0.56 ppm x concentration factor 4.73).  For dill seed, the OECD calculation procedures could not be used because there were only two field trials, thus resulting in a recommended tolerance of 0.5 ppm (calculated by: 5 x mean dill oil residue 0.9 ppm).  For dill oil, a 3.21X concentration factor was derived from a single residue field trial, resulting in a recommended tolerance of 2.0 ppm (calculated by: HAFT of fresh dill 0.56 ppm x concentration factor 3.21).

Parsley (MRID 48928503)
The dataset used to establish a tolerance for linuron consisted of field trial data on parsley representing one application of 1.51 lb ai/A and 29- to 32-day PHIs.  The average residue values used to calculate the tolerance are provided below.  Although the LOQ were not statistically calculated in this study, all combined residues of linuron and its metabolites hydrolyzed to 2,4-DCA were quantifiable in/on samples above the LLMV (0.05 ppm).  For fresh parsley, the OECD calculation procedures could not be used because there were only two field trials, thus resulting in a recommended tolerance of 4.0 ppm (calculated by: 5 x mean fresh parsley residue 0.75 ppm).  For fresh parsley, the recommended tolerance is 4.0 ppm.  For dried parsley, a 2.76X concentration factor was derived from a single residue field trial where parsley was dried, resulting in a recommended tolerance of 3.0 ppm (calculated by: HAFT of fresh parsley 1.015 ppm x concentration factor 2.76).

Pea (Dry) (MRID 48928504)
The dataset used to establish a tolerance for linuron consisted of field trial data on peas (dry) representing one application within -5% to +10% of 1 lb ai/A, and 65- to 92-day PHIs.  The average residue values used to calculate the tolerance are provided below.  Combined residues of linuron and its metabolites hydrolyzed to 2,4-DCA were quantifiable in/on two of six trials.  Data from all six field trials were used in the OECD calculation procedures, resulting in a recommended tolerance of 0.06 ppm.

Horseradish (MRIDs 45633501 and 45633502)
The dataset used to establish a tolerance for linuron consisted of field trial data on horseradish representing one application within -5% to +10% of 1.5 lb ai/A per application, and 76- to 100-day PHIs.  The average residue values used to calculate the tolerance are provided below.  An LOQ was not statistically calculated in this study, but the LLMV was determined to be 0.05 ppm.  Data from three field trials indicated that detectable residues were not found.  Thus, data consisting of <LOQ values from three field trials were used in the OECD tolerance calculation procedures, resulting in a recommended tolerance equivalent to the LOQ of 0.05 ppm.
Appendix A.  Summary of Submitted Residue Chemistry Studies

Table A1.  Summary of Submitted Residue Chemistry Studies
                                OCSPP Guideline
                                     MRID
Title
                                   860.1340

                           Residue Analytical Method
                                   48832101
Determination of the Substituted Urea Herbicide Linuron and its Metabolites in Oily, Watery, and Starch Crop Matrices

                                   48832102
Independent Laboratory Validation of "Determination of the Substituted Urea Herbicide Linuron and its Metabolites in Soil and Agricultural Products" for Oily, Watery, and Starch Crop Matrices

                                   48832103
Determination of the Substituted Urea Herbicide Linuron and its Metabolites in Animal Tissue

                                   48832104
Independent Laboratory Validation of the Draft Method "Determination of the Substituted Urea Herbicide Linuron and its Metabolites in Animal Tissues"

                                   48832105
Method Transfer and Validation of "Determination of the Substituted Urea Herbicide Linuron and its Metabolites in Soil and Agricultural Products" for Animal Matrices

                                   48832106
Analytical Method for the Determination of Linuron and Metabolites in Crops using LC/MS/MS

                                   48832107
Independent Laboratory Validation of "Determination of the Substituted Urea Herbicide Linuron and its Metabolites in Soil and Agricultural Products" for Oily, Watery, and Starch Crop Matrices

                                   48832108
Independent Laboratory Validation of Residue Analytical Method 20001407/01-RVP, "Residue Analysis of Diuron and Metabolites in Plants Method Validation" for the Determination of Residues of Linuron and Metabolites in Grapes, Olives, and Wheat Grain

                                   48832109
Analytical Method for the Determination of Linuron and Metabolites in Animal Tissue using LC/MS/MS

                                   48832110
Independent Laboratory Validation of "Analytical Method for the Determination of Linuron and Metabolites in Animal Tissue using LC/MS/MS" and "Analytical Method for the Determination of Diuron and Metabolites in Animal Tissue using LC/MS/MS"
                                   860.1500

                               Crop Field Trial
                                   48928501
Linuron: Magnitude of the Residue on Coriander

                                   48928502
Linuron: Magnitude of the Residue on Dill

                                   48928503
Linuron: Magnitude of the Residue on Parsley

                                   48928504
Linuron: Magnitude of the Residue on Pea (Dry)

                                   45633501
                                   45633502
Linuron: Magnitude of the Residue on Horseradish

Appendix B.  International Residue Limits Table for Linuron

Table B1.  Summary of US and International Tolerances and Maximum Residue Limits of Linuron
                              Residue Definition
                                      US
                                    Canada
                                   Mexico[b]
                                     Codex
40 CFR 180.184:
Plant and Livestock:
(3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-1-methylurea) and its metabolites convertible to 3,4-dichloroaniline
None

None
                                 Commodity[a]
                Tolerance (ppm) /Maximum Residue Limit (mg/kg)

                                      US
                                    Canada
                                   Mexico[b]
                                     Codex
                            Cilantro, fresh leaves
                                      1.5

                            Cilantro, dried leaves
                                      10

                                Coriander, seed
                                     0.05

                            Dillweed, fresh leaves
                                      0.6

                            Dillweed, dried leaves
                                      3.0

                                  Dill, seed
                                      0.5

                                   Dill, oil
                                      2.0

                                  Horseradish
                                     0.05

                                Parsley, leaves
                                      4.0

                             Parsley, dried leaves
                                      3.0

                                Pea, dry, seed
                                     0.06

Completed:  M. Negussie; 07/30/2013
a	Includes only commodities of interest for this action.  Tolerance values should be the HED recommendations and not those proposed by the applicant.
b	Mexico adopts US tolerances and/or Codex MRLs for its export purposes.

Appendix C.  OECD MRL Calculation Procedure Inputs/Outputs

Coriander (MRID 48928501)
2.0 lb ai/A; 19-21 day PHIs

                               Residues (mg/kg)
                                     0.940
                                     4.000
                                     0.086
                                     4.000
                                     0.525
                                     4.000
                                     1.055
                                     4.000

Compound

                                    Linuron
Crop

                                Fresh Coriander
Region / Country

                                  CA/OR/TN/TX
GAP

Total number of data (n)

                                       4

Percentage of censored data

                                     100%
Number of non-censored data

                                       0

Lowest residue

                                     0.086
Highest residue

                                     1.055
Median residue

                                     0.733

Mean

                                     0.651
Standard deviation (SD)

                                     0.441

Correction factor for censoring (CF)

                                     0.333

Proposed MRL estimate

- Highest residue

                                     1.055
- Mean + 4 SD

                                     2.414
- CF x 3 Mean

                                     0.651
Unrounded MRL

                                     1.055

Rounded MRL

                                      1.5

High uncertainty of MRL estimate due to small dataset and high level of censoring.

Dill (MRID 48928502)
2.0 lb ai/A; 20-22 day PHIs

                               Residues (mg/kg)
                                     0.335
                                     3.000
                                     0.490
                                     3.000
                                     0.560
                                     3.000

Compound

                                    Linuron
Crop

                                  Fresh Dill
Region / Country

                                   CA/FL/WA
GAP

Total number of data (n)

                                       3

Percentage of censored data

                                     100%
Number of non-censored data

                                       0

Lowest residue

                                     0.335
Highest residue

                                     0.560
Median residue

                                     0.490

Mean

                                     0.462
Standard deviation (SD)

                                     0.115

Correction factor for censoring (CF)

                                     0.333

Proposed MRL estimate

- Highest residue

                                     0.560
- Mean + 4 SD

                                     0.922
- CF x 3 Mean

                                     0.462
Unrounded MRL

                                     0.560

Rounded MRL

                                      0.6

High uncertainty of MRL estimate due to small dataset and high level of censoring.

Pea (Dry) (MRID 48928504)
1.0 lb ai/A; 65-92 day PHIs

                               Residues (mg/kg)
                                     0.015
                                     6.000
                                     0.010
                                       *
                                     0.010
                                       *
                                     0.010
                                       *
                                     0.051
                                     6.000
                                     0.010
                                       *

Compound

                                    Linuron
Crop

                                   Pea (Dry)
Region / Country

                                   ID/ND/WA
GAP

Total number of data (n)

                                       6

Percentage of censored data

                                     100%
Number of non-censored data

                                       0

Lowest residue

                                     0.010
Highest residue

                                     0.051
Median residue

                                     0.010

Mean

                                     0.018
Standard deviation (SD)

                                     0.016

Correction factor for censoring (CF)

                                     0.333

Proposed MRL estimate

- Highest residue

                                     0.051
- Mean + 4 SD

                                     0.083
- CF x 3 Mean

                                     0.018
Unrounded MRL

                                     0.051

Rounded MRL

                                     0.06

High uncertainty of MRL estimate due to small dataset and high level of censoring.

Horeseradish (MRIDs 45633501 and 45633502)
1.5 lb ai/A; 76-100 day PHIs

                               Residues (mg/kg)
                                   <0.05
                                   <0.05
                                   <0.05

Compound

                                    Linuron
Crop

                                  Horseradish
Region / Country

                                   MD/WI/NJ
GAP

Total number of data (n)

                                       3

Percentage of censored data

                                     100%
Number of non-censored data

                                       0

Lowest residue

                                     0.050
Highest residue

                                     0.050
Median residue

                                     0.050

Mean

                                     0.050
Standard deviation (SD)

                                     0.000

Correction factor for censoring (CF)

                                     0.333

Proposed MRL estimate

- Highest residue

                                     0.050
- Mean + 4 SD

                                     0.050
- CF x 3 Mean

                                     0.050
Unrounded MRL

                                     0.05

Rounded MRL

                                     0.05

High uncertainty of MRL estimate due to small dataset and high level of censoring.


 From:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS> To:
Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US@EPA
 Cc:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Date:
07/14/2011 07:49 PM
 Subject:
Further issues re. the HDV GHG regs

Byron,

A few more quick issues that I want to follow up on, after our discussion a few weeks ago:
   A very important issue for us is changing the date of manufacture definition.  I am not sure that we made this sufficiently clear during our discussions before.  Our VIN, which includes a model year designation, is stamped on frame rails in advance of a vehicle build.  We cannot change that VIN without great difficulty once the vehicle begins its build process.  The EPA's proposed build date (and in turn, model year designation) would depend on the last date of manufacturing, which can vary significantly (e.g., if one single part is out of stock, such that a vehicle goes into "off-line").  The EPA proposed limiting this just to manufacturing at the main production facility, but that does not solve the problem.  Rather, the agency would put us in the difficult position of having to restamp frame rails every time a part shortage pushes a vehicle from one year's build period to the next, since those vehicles are still at the main production facility.  Moreover, the EPA's proposed requirement would potentially lead to different VINs for NHTSA as for the EPA.  (Recall that NHTSA does not have such a build completion provision.)  To resolve these issues, I recommend that the EPA use a build date specification that is more simple to nail down, like the engine-in-chassis date or the date on which rails start down the vehicle manufacturer's assembly line.
   In June the EPA suggested adding a requirement for use of a wind tunnel that the wind tunnel meet SAE J1252 specifications.  This is problematic for Daimler and perhaps for every vehicle manufacturer in the US because of the blockage ratio requirement.  Section 5.2 of 1252 limits tunnels to a blockage ratio of 1/20 at 0 degrees yaw and 0.3 at max yaw.  With Daimler's contoured wind tunnel, this is not possible, so we would be unable to use otherwise good data from this wind tunnel.  With the NRC wind tunnel and a full sized trailer, I am not sure that the yawed blockage ratio can be met.  (Perhaps it can, but I think not, just because so much side area becomes exposed.  I bet Arvon or Prashanth know better than me.)  In short, I request at least the possibility that Daimler be able to certify our non-1252 tunnel so that we can use data from it.
   Lastly, a new issue that just came to my attention:  some fleets (like Waste Management) and natural gas engine manufacturers (like Cummins Westport) suggested in their January comments to the EPA that natural gas vehicles should be eligible for a credit multiplier like the 6.67x multiplier available for LDVs using natural gas, an option presented but dropped in the NPRM.  (75 FR 74198.)  I know that HDEs will benefit from the low CO2 emissions of natural gas.  But HDVs could definitely benefit from a credit for natural gas use, like LDVs do.  I do not know what is the correct multiplier, 6.67 or something else, but advanced technologies may get a 1.5x multiplier.  Perhaps natural gas vehicles should too, since NGVs are quite expensive, like hybrids.  Or, perhaps the natural gas engines should get credits with a 1.5x multiplier that are fungible like advanced technology credits.

Regards,
Dave
-------------------------
David Kayes
Compliance and Regulatory Affairs --- Environmental Compliance
Daimler Trucks
(503) 745-9162 Office
(503) 265-9838 Mobile
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
If you are not the intended addressee, please inform us immediately that you have received this e-mail in error, and delete it. We thank you for your cooperation.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 181 (Thursday, September 18, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56025-56026]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22351]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0561; Directorate Identifier 2014-NE-12-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211 Trent 768-60, 772-60, and 772B-60
turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by fractures of the
high-pressure/intermediate-pressure (HP/IP) turbine support internal
oil feed tube. This proposed AD would require inspection of the oil
feed tube sealing sleeve and removal of those oil feed tube sealing
sleeves that fail inspection. We are proposing this AD to prevent
failure of the HP/IP turbine support internal oil feed tube, which
could result in uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 17,
2014.

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.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0561; 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 mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-
647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wego Wang, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
781-238-7199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0561;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NE-12-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
with FAA personnel concerning 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
AD 2014-0168, dated July 16, 2014 (referred to hereinafter as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

There have been nine occurrences of high oil consumption, caused by
fracture of the High/Intermediate Pressure (HP/IP) turbine support
internal oil feed tube Part Number (P/N) FW45909.
The oil feed tube threaded end adaptor and sealing sleeve P/N
FW15003 are designed to form a sliding joint which, if restrained,
can compress the oil feed tube during thermal contraction of the
turbine casing at the end

of the flight cycle. On each subsequent flight, the thermal growth
and contraction of the turbine casing relative to the oil tube,
during the heating and cooling phases of the flight cycle, apply a
load cycle to the tube, which may lead to low cycle fatigue
fracture.

    This AD requires removal of certain HP/IP turbine support internal
oil feed tube sealing sleeves to prevent oil exhaustion that could
result in uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.
    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0561.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the
United Kingdom, and is approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA
has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are
proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA
and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD
would require a one-time on-wing or in-shop inspection of the affected
engines and removal from service of all affected P/N FW15003 oil feed
tube sealing sleeves.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 69 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about
8.5 hours per engine to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $49,853.

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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Rolls-Royce plc: Docket No. FAA-2014-0561; Directorate Identifier
2014-NE-12-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 17, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211 Trent 768-60, 772-
60, and 772B-60 turbofan engines serial numbers 41693-42309
inclusive, 42313, 42318, 42319, 42320, 42328, and 42330 with high-
pressure/intermediate-pressure (HP/IP) turbine support internal oil
feed tube sealing sleeve part number (P/N) FW15003 installed that is
marked with the prefix ``B/N'' followed by a six digit batch number,
and does not contain the marking 102013, 112013 or 102013L.

(d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by fractures of the HP/IP turbine support
internal oil feed tube. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of
the HP/IP turbine support internal oil feed tube, which could result
in uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, perform
on-wing or in-shop inspection for, and remove from service, any
affected HP/IP turbine support internal oil feed tube sealing
sleeve.
    (2) Remove from service any HP/IP turbine support internal oil
feed tube sealing sleeve on which markings cannot be sufficiently
identified to determine whether said sealing sleeve is part of the
affected population.
    (3) From the effective date of this AD, you may install on
engines HP/IP turbine support internal oil feed tube sealing
sleeves, P/N FW15003, that are marked with the prefix ``B/N''
followed by a six digit batch number, provided that the part is
marked with 102013, 112013 or 102013L.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
to this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(g) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Wego Wang,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2014-0168,
dated July 16, 2014, for more information. You may examine the MCAI
in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2014-0561.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on September 9, 2014.
Richard P. Warren,
Acting Assistant Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-22351 Filed 9-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


From: "Tunno, Brett J"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wed, 08 Mar 2023 12:10:39  To: "Raymond; Gabrielle"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Jones; DonnaLee"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Gary Fischman<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: CLARIFICATION RE: [External]-RE: U. S. Steel - Coke Ovens Section 114   -  missing TO-15A data Gabrielle,   The stack testing company forgot to add the THC results into the final test report.  They added the results to the report and I re-uploaded it into the Sharefile for you.   Thanks,   Brett Tunno, DrPH, CPH Environmental Affairs  United States Steel Corporation Office:<PHONE_NUMBER> Cell:<PHONE_NUMBER> Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS><< AST-2022-3353 US Steel Cooling Tower ICR Retest_F_revised3.8.23.pdf >>   From: Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 11:35 AM To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tunno, Brett J<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Gary Fischman<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Dzurinko, Mike G<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Coke ICR2<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Shappley, Ned<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mcginn, Kevin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: CLARIFICATION RE: [External]-RE: U. S. Steel - Coke Ovens Section 114  -  missing TO-15A data   Hello,   Thank you again for submitting your re-test cooling tower results on 2/27/2023.   In reviewing the report, we noticed that THC values are not included.    Can you please confirm if the results are available or why they were not included in the report?   Thank you, Gabrielle


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 241 (Monday, December 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71891-71893]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27437]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0414; FRL-9345-01-OCSPP]

Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC); Notice of Public
Meeting and Request for Comments on Draft Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) Systematic Review Protocol

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: There will be a 3-day peer review virtual public meeting of
the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) to consider and
review the draft TSCA Systematic Review Protocol. In addition, EPA is
announcing the availability of and soliciting public comments on the
draft protocol. The draft protocol is based on a revised, generic
approach to systematic review accounting for comments from prior SACC
reviews of chemical risk evaluations and more recent recommendations
from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
(NASEM).

DATES:
    Peer Review Virtual Public Meeting: Will be held on April 19-21,
2022, from 10:00 a.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m. (EDT). See the
additional details and instructions for registration that appear in
Unit III.
    Written Comments: Submit your written comments on or before
February 18, 2022. As described in Unit III., you may also register to
make oral comments during the virtual public meeting.
    Special accommodations: Requests for special accommodations should
be submitted on or before April 4, 2022, to allow EPA time to process
these requests.

ADDRESSES:
    Peer Review Virtual Meeting: You must register online to receive
the webcast meeting link and audio teleconference information. Please
follow the registration instructions that will be announced on the SACC
website at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review by early March 2022.
For additional instructions related to this meeting, see Unit III.
    Written Comments: Submit written comments, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0414, through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Do not electronically submit any
information you consider to be

Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Copyrighted material will not be
posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder. Members of
the public should also be aware that their personal contact
information, if included in any written comments, may be posted on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Additional information on
commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about
dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Due to public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket
Center and Reading Room are open to the public by appointment only. For
further information on the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) services, docket
contact information and the current status of the EPA/DC and Reading
Room, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets. For questions about
this docket, you may also contact the Designated Federal Official (DFO)
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Special accommodations: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, and to request accommodation for a
disability, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Todd Peterson, DFO, Office of
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (7201M), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may
be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing
and those interested in risk evaluations of chemical substances under
TSCA. Since other entities may also be interested in this action, the
EPA has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action.

B. Where can I access information about the SACC and this meeting?

    Information about the SACC and this meeting is available on the
SACC website at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review and in the docket
for this meeting, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0414,
at https://www.regulations.gov. You may also subscribe to the following
listserv for alerts when notices regarding this and other SACC related
activities are published: https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USAEPAOPPT/subscriber/new?topic_id=USAEPAOPPT.

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. If your comments contain any information that
you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected, please contact the DFO
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to obtain special
instructions before submitting your comments.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see Tips for Effective Comments at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

A. What is the purpose of the SACC?

    The SACC was established by EPA in 2016 and operates in accordance
with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2 et
seq. The SACC provides expert independent scientific advice and
consultation to the EPA on the scientific and technical aspects of risk
assessments, methodologies, and pollution prevention measures and
approaches for chemicals regulated under TSCA.
    The SACC is comprised of experts in: Toxicology; Human health and
environmental risk assessment; Exposure assessment; and Related
sciences (e.g., synthetic biology, pharmacology, biotechnology,
nanotechnology, biochemistry, biostatistics, physiologically based
pharmacokinetic [PBPK] modeling, computational toxicology,
epidemiology, environmental fate, and environmental engineering and
sustainability). When needed, the committee members will be assisted in
their reviews by consultants with specific expertise in the topics
under consideration.

B. What is the purpose of peer review of the draft TSCA systematic
review protocol?

    The draft TSCA Systematic Review Protocol includes a revised
generic approach for TSCA-related approaches accounting for previous
peer review comments from SACC reviews of risk evaluations on the first
10 chemical assessments and more recent recommendations from the NASEM
review of the Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk
Evaluations. In addition to the revised, generic approach, this peer
review package will include appendices containing chemical specific
information that is relevant for search strings and screening
statements and data evaluation criteria for the next chemical risk
evaluations being conducted by the Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics (OPPT).

C. How can I access the SACC documents?

    EPA's background documents, related supporting materials, and draft
charge questions to the SACC are available on the SACC website and in
the docket established for this meeting are available at https://www.regulations.gov; docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0414. In
addition, EPA will provide additional background documents (e.g., SACC
members and consultants participating in this meeting and the meeting
agenda) as the materials become available. You may obtain electronic
copies of these documents, and certain other related documents that
might be available, in the docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
the SACC website at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review.
    After the public meeting, the SACC will prepare meeting minutes
summarizing its recommendations to the EPA. The meeting minutes will be
posted on the SACC website and in the relevant docket.

III. Public Participation Instructions

    To participate in the peer review virtual public meeting, please
follow the instructions in this unit.

A. How can I provide comments?

    To ensure proper receipt of comments it is imperative that you
identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0414 in the subject line on
the first page of your request.
    1. Written comments. The Agency encourages written comments for the
peer review public meeting be submitted using the instructions in
ADDRESSES and Unit I.B. and C, on or before the date set in the DATES
section. Anyone submitting written comments after this date should
contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. If you
submit comments after the date set in the DATES section, those comments
will be provided to the SACC members.
    2. Oral comments. The Agency encourages each individual or group
wishing to make brief oral comments to the SACC during the peer review
virtual public meeting to please follow the registration instructions
that will be announced on the SACC website by

early March 2022 (https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review).
    Oral comments before the SACC during the peer review virtual public
meeting are limited to 5 minutes unless arrangements have been made
prior to the date set in the DATES section. In addition, each speaker
should email a copy of his/her comments to the DFO prior to the meeting
for distribution to the SACC by the DFO.

B. How can I participate in the virtual public meeting?

    This meeting will be virtual and viewed via webcast. For
information on how to first register and then view the webcast, please
refer to the SACC website at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review. EPA
intends to announce registration instructions on the SACC website by
early March 2022.
    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: December 14, 2021.
Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemicals Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2021-27437 Filed 12-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P