[Federal Register: September 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 57764]
[DOCID:fr22se10-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RM06-16-010; RM06-16-011]

Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk Power System;
Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference

September 14, 2010.
    On August 19, 2010 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
announced that a Technical Conference on Frequency Response in the
Wholesale Electric Grid would be held on Thursday, September 23, from
10 a.m. to 4 p.m. This staff-led conference will be held in the
Commission Meeting Room at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The conference will be
open for the public to attend and advance registration is not required.
Members of the Commission may attend the conference.
    Attached is an agenda for this meeting. A full agenda, with
panelists, will be posted on the Commission's Web calendar page for
this event prior to the meeting. The Commission's Web site is at http:/
/www.ferc.gov.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this conference, please contact: Sarah
McKinley, Office of External Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-
8368<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-23600 Filed 9-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 191 (Friday, October 2, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59672-59674]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24729]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-2983; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-20-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; CFM International S.A. 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 CFM International S.A. (CFM) CFM56-5B series turbofan engines.
This proposed AD was prompted by a corrected lifing analysis by the
engine manufacturer that shows the need to identify an initial and
repetitive inspection threshold for certain part number (P/N) turbine
rear frames (TRFs). This proposed AD would require initial and
repetitive inspections of certain P/N TRFs on the low-pressure turbine
(LPT) frame assembly. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of
the TRF on the LPT frame assembly, which could lead to engine
separation, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 1,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact CFM
International Inc., Aviation Operations Center, 1 Neumann Way, M/D Room
285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may view this service
information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
2983; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kyle Gustafson, 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>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-2983;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-20-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 because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We were informed by CFM that it has corrected its lifing analysis
for the TRF, P/N 338-102-907-0 and P/N 338-102-908-0, on the LPT frame
assembly installed on CFM56-5B turbofan engines. This corrected lifing
analysis shows the need for initial and repetitive inspections of
certain P/N TRFs to manage low-cycle fatigue cracks. This condition, if
not corrected, could result in failure of the TRF on the LPT frame
assembly, which could lead to engine separation, damage to the engine,
and damage to the airplane.
    The initial and repetitive inspection intervals differ depending on
whether CFM Service Bulletin (SB) No. CFM56-5B S/B 72-0308, Revision 5,
dated October 12, 2007, has been applied. We are proposing to allow
engines with TRFs that have exceeded the initial inspection threshold a
continued in-service allowance of 150 cycles to provide sufficient time
to perform the initial inspection. The proposed repetitive inspection
intervals are based on the size of the crack, if any, found during the
inspection.

Relevant Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed CFM SB No. CFM56-5B S/B 72-0850, dated December 19,
2012, and CFM SB No. CFM56-5B S/B 72-0308, Revision 5, dated October
12, 2007. CFM SB No. CFM56-5B S/B 72-0850 describes procedures for
inspecting the TRF. CFM SB No. CFM56-5B S/B 72-0308 identifies the
engines to which this proposed AD applies. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section of this document.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require initial and repetitive inspections
of the TRF on the LPT frame assembly.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 94 engines
installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would
take about 3 hours per engine to do the inspection. 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 $23,970.

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. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

CFM International S.A.: Docket No. FAA-2015-2983; Directorate
Identifier 2015-NE-20-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 1, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to CFM International S.A. (CFM) CFM56-5B engines
with turbine rear frame (TRF), part number (P/N) 338-102-907-0 or P/
N 338-102-908-0, installed.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a corrected lifing analysis by the
engine manufacturer that shows the need for an initial and
repetitive inspection of certain P/N TRFs on the low-pressure
turbine (LPT) frame assembly. We are issuing this AD to prevent
failure of the TRF on the LPT frame assembly, which could lead to
engine separation, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) For Engines that have Applied CFM Service Bulletin (SB) No.
CFM56-5B S/B 72-0308:
    (i) Prior to accumulating 25,000 cycles since new (CSN) on the
TRF of the LPT frame assembly or within 150 cycles after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, perform an
initial eddy current inspection (ECI) or a fluorescent penetrant
inspection (FPI) of the TRF mount struts on the LPT assembly.
    (ii) For engines with unknown CSN on the TRF of the LPT frame
assembly, perform the initial inspection required by this AD within
150 cycles-in-service after the effective date of this AD.
    (iii) Use paragraph 3.B. in the Accomplishment Instructions of
CFM SB No. CFM56-5B S/B 72-0850, dated December 19, 2012, to do the
ECI and paragraph 3.C. in the Accomplishment Instructions of CFM SB
No. CFM56-5B S/B 72-0850, to do the FPI. Do not include TRF mount
strut crack lengths towards the cumulative crack length after the
cracks are repaired.
    (iv) If no cracks are found on any of the three TRF mount
struts, or the cumulative length of all cracks at any TRF mount
strut location is less than 0.20 inches, repeat the inspection
within 1,670 cycles since last inspection (CSLI).
    (v) If the cumulative length of cracks at any TRF mount strut
location is greater than or equal to 0.20 inches, but less than 0.25
inches, repeat the inspection within 280 CSLI.
    (vi) If the cumulative length of cracks at any TRF mount strut
location is 0.25 inches or greater, replace the TRF with a part
eligible for installation before further flight.
    (2) For Engines that have Not Applied CFM SB No. CFM56-5B S/B
72-0308:
    (i) Prior to accumulating 32,000 CSN on the TRF of the LPT frame
assembly or within 150 cycles after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later, perform an initial ECI or FPI of the TRF
mount struts on the LPT frame assembly.
    (ii) For engines with unknown CSN on the TRF of the LPT frame
assembly, perform the initial inspection required by this AD within
150 cycles-in-service after the effective date of this AD.
    (iii) Use paragraph 3.B. in the Accomplishment Instructions of
CFM SB No. CFM56-5B S/B 72-0850, dated December 19, 2012, to do the
ECI and paragraph 3.C. in the Accomplishment Instructions of CFM SB
No. CFM56-5B S/B 72-0850, to do the FPI. Do not include TRF mount
strut crack lengths towards the cumulative crack length after the
cracks are repaired.
    (iv) If no cracks are found on any of the three TRF mount
struts, or the cumulative length of cracks at any TRF mount strut
location is less than 0.20 inches, repeat the inspection within
2,500 CSLI.
    (v) If the cumulative length of cracks at any TRF mount strut
location is greater than or equal to 0.20 inches and less than 0.25
inches, repeat the inspection within 370 CSLI.
    (vi) If the cumulative length of cracks at any TRF mount strut
location is 0.25 inches or greater, replace the TRF with a part
eligible for installation before further flight.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(g) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kyle Gustafson,
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) CFM SB No. CFM56-5B S/B 72-0850, dated December 19, 2012,
and CFM SB No. CFM56-5B S/B 72-0308, Revision 5, dated October 12,
2007, can be obtained from CFM using the contact information in
paragraph (g)(3) of this proposed AD.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact CFM
International Inc., Aviation Operations Center, 1 Neumann Way, M/D
Room 285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 877-432-
3329; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on September 24, 2015.
Colleen M. D'Allesandro,
Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-24729 Filed 10-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27314-27315]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11496]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e) (1) (v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using
the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three
digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC, Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Exempt:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Docket No.                     File date                 Presenter or requester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CP11-56-000.................................     4-19-11  Hon. Scott M. Stringer.
2. ER11-2224-000...............................     4-19-11  Hon. William Colton.
3. ER11-2224-000...............................     4-19-11  Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand.
4. Project No. 12611-005.......................     4-28-11  Mary Ann Adonizio.\1\
5. Project No. 12737-002.......................     4-28-11  Tylan Dean.\2\
6. Project No. 12737-002.......................     4-28-11  William Hester.\3\
7. Project No. 12737-002.......................     4-28-11  James B. Price.\4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Record of e-mail correspondence.
\2\ Record of e-mail correspondence.
\3\ Record of e-mail correspondence.
\4\ Record of telephone call to Commission staff.

    Dated: May 4, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-11496 Filed 5-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 22, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71238-71239]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25388]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1209; Airspace Docket No. 22-AWA-5]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class C Airspace; Evansville, IN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Evansville Regional Airport, IN, Class
C airspace description to update the airport reference point (ARP)
geographic coordinates for the Evansville Regional Airport and the
Skylane Airport to match the FAA's National Airspace System Resource
(NASR) database information. Additionally, this action makes technical
amendments to the airspace description header information by changing
the title of the airspace area and adding the Pocket City, IN (PXV),
VHF Omnidirectional Range and Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC)
navigational aid. Finally this action amends the airspace description
by correcting the Airport/Facility Directory reference. This action
does not change the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of
the Class C airspace area.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, February 23, 2023. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it updates the listed airports ARP geographic coordinates
information, amends the airspace description header information by
changing the airspace title and adding the Pocket City VORTAC. Finally,
this action corrects the airspace description by updating the Airport/
Facility Directory reference.

History

    Class C airspace areas are designed to improve air safety by
reducing the risk of midair collisions in high volume airport terminal
areas and to enhance the management of air traffic operations in that
area. During a recent inquiry regarding the Evansville Regional
Airport, IN, Class C airspace description and the surface area cutout
for the Skylane Airport, the FAA identified that the Evansville
Regional Airport and Skylane Airport ARP geographic coordinates were
incorrect. This action updates the ARP geographic coordinates for both
airports listed in the airspace description to coincide with the FAA's
NASR database information. After reviewing the existing airspace
description, this action also makes technical amendments to the
airspace description header information by changing the title of the
Class C airspace area to reflect city and state instead of the airport
name the airspace is designated around and by adding the Pocket City,
IN (PXV), VORTAC since it is used to define the surface area cutout for
the Skylane Airport. Further, a technical amendment to the airspace
description corrects the Airport/Facility Directory reference. There
are no changes to the boundaries, altitudes, or air traffic control
services resulting from this action.
    Class C airspace areas are published in paragraph 4000 of FAA Order
7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class C airspace
listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO
7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15,
2022. FAA Order 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11G lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending the Evansville
Regional Airport, IN, Class C airspace description to update the
Evansville Regional Airport and Skylane Airport ARP geographic
coordinates contained in the airspace description. The ARP geographic
coordinates for the Evansville Regional Airport are changed from ``lat.
38[deg]02'17'' N, long. 87[deg]31'50'' W.'' to ``lat. 38[deg]02'27'' N,
long. 087[deg]31'43'' W.'' and for the Skylane Airport are changed from
``lat. 38[deg]01'00'' N, long. 87[deg]35'30'' W.'' to ``lat.
38[deg]00'43'' N, long. 087[deg]35'42'' W.''. These ARP geographic
coordinates changes are made to coincide with the FAA's NASR database
information. Additionally, this action makes technical amendments to
the airspace description header by changing the airspace title from the
``Evansville Regional Airport, IN'' to ``Evansville, IN'' and by adding
the Pocket City, IN (PXV), VORTAC that is used to define the Class C
surface area cutout. Finally, this action makes a technical amendment
to the airspace description by correcting the ``Airport/Facility
Directory'' reference to the ``Chart Supplement''. These technical
amendments are made to comply with airspace legal description guidance
contained in FAA Order JO 7400.2.
    This action does not affect the boundaries, altitudes, or operating
requirements of the airspace. Therefore, notice and public procedure
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action making technical amendments
to the Evansville, IN, Class C airspace description qualifies for
categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part
1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts:
Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes
from full environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate
or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting
points. Since this action does not change the boundaries, altitudes, or
operating requirements of the Class C airspace area, and only amends
the legal description to contain the current Evansville Regional
Airport and Skylane Airport ARP geographic coordinates, this airspace
action is not expected to result in any potentially significant
environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph
5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, this action has been
reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a normally
categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental
impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined
that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of
an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 4000 Class C Airspace.

* * * * *

AGL IN C Evansville, IN [Amended]

Evansville Regional Airport, IN
    (Lat. 38[deg]02'27'' N, long. 087[deg]31'43'' W)
Skylane Airport, IN
    (Lat. 38[deg]00'43'' N, long. 087[deg]35'42'' W)
Pocket City, IN (PXV), VORTAC
    (Lat. 37[deg]55'42'' N, long. 087[deg]45'45'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
4,500 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of the Evansville Regional
Airport, excluding that airspace extending upward from the surface
to 1,600 feet MSL beginning where the Pocket City VORTAC 057[deg]
radial crosses the 5-mile ring, thence northeast via the Pocket City
VORTAC 057[deg] radial to intercept a 1\1/4\-mile radius of the
Skylane Airport, thence counterclockwise via the 1\1/4\-mile radius
to the 360[deg] bearing from the Skylane Airport, thence due west to
the 5-mile ring; and that airspace extending upward from 1,600 feet
MSL to and including 4,500 feet MSL within a 10-mile radius of the
Evansville Regional Airport. This Class C airspace area is effective
during the specific days and hours of operation of the Evansville
Tower and Approach Control Facility as established in advance by a
Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be
continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 16, 2022.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022-25388 Filed 11-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 92941-92943]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30588]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0328; FMCSA-2012-0282; FMCSA-2012-0283; FMCSA-
2014-0308; FMCSA-2014-0309]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions of 110
individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs) in interstate commerce. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt
individuals from this rule if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these CMV drivers.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions was effective from the dates
stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before
January 19, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0328; FMCSA-
2012-0282; FMCSA-2012-0283; FMCSA-2014-0308; FMCSA-2014-0309, using any
of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 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 or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the

name of the individual submitting the comment (or of the person signing
the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal
Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 2-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to renew
exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 110 individuals listed
in this notice have recently become eligible for a renewed exemption
from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. The drivers remain in good
standing with the Agency, have maintained their required medical
monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would
compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-
year exemption period.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 110 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. These 110 drivers
remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their required
medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would
compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-
year exemption period. Therefore, FMCSA has decided to extend each
exemption for a renewable two-year period. Each individual is
identified according to the renewal date.
    The exemptions are renewed subject to the following conditions: (1)
That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed
by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a
comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports
within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe
hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage
diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse
event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an
episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual submit an annual
ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report; and (4) that each individual
provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for
retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her
driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must
also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to
a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. The following groups of
drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of December and are
discussed below.
    As of December 9, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 37 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (79 FR 66451; 80 FR
2479):

Travis L. Beck (OH)
Corey C. Bennett (MS)
Nicholas J. Borelli (NJ)
Elvis P. Butler (TN)
John H. Butler (OH)
Michael E. Calvert (TX)
Keith J. Cole (WI)
Kevin E. Conti (OH)
Marsh L. Daggett (TX)
Chad E. Hales (UT)
Dennis L. Hooyman (WI)
Lorenza K. Jefferson (VA)
Edward Johnson (TN)
William O. Johnson, Jr.
Michael E. Kroll (WI)
Isolina Matos (NJ)
Rex D. McManaway (IL)
Steven A. Metternick (MI)
Daniel P. Miller (PA)
James K. Ollerich (SD)
Scott B. Olson (ND)
Raymond E. Pawloski (MI)
Loren A. Pingel (CO)
Douglas S. Pitcher (NY)
Terrence A. Proctor (MD)
Salvador Ramirez, Jr. (IL)
Heber E. Rodriguez (VA)
Lukas N. Skutnik (NE)
Daniel C. Sliman (OH)
Jeffrey A. Sturgill (OH)
Maurice S. Styles (MN)
Richard J. Thomas (IN)
Kevin E. Tucker
Robert Vassallo (NY)
Clifford L. White (KS)
Jason L. Woody (KS)
Wesley B. Yokum (PA)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0308. Their
exemptions are effective as of December 9, 2016 and will expire on
December 9, 2018.
    As of December 14, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 11 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (75 FR 63536; 75 FR
77952):

William V. Barbrie (RI)
John P. Catalano (NJ)
Gary J. Dionne (ID)
Thomas C. Donahue (MA)
Marlin K. Johnson (MN)
George Long, Jr. (NM)
Robert Minacapelli (NY)
Joe E. L. Radabaugh (OH)
Ben D. Shelton, Jr. (IL)
Nestor P. Vargas, Jr. (WA)
Harold A. Wendt (MN)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0328. Their
exemptions are effective as of December 14, 2016 and will expire on
December 14, 2018.
    As of December 20, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 17 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (77 FR 63411; 77 FR
64181; 77 FR 75492; 77 FR 75493):

James D. Astle (OH)
Robert E. Carroll (FL)
Thomas L. Gilmore (IA)
Kenneth M. Hansen (IA)
David J. Heppelmann (MN)
Dennis R. Johnson (TN)
Ronald D. Johnston (VA)
Steven M. Knezevich (MI)
Phil J. Kunkel (IN)
Carl E. McCartney (PA)
Fred Nelson, Jr. (PA)
Ricky L. Osterback (WA)
Joseph M. Polkowski, Sr. (PA)
Dan R. Stark (MN)
Chad E. Vanscoy (OH)
Mark A. Welch, Jr. (PA)
Bailey G. Zickefoose, Jr. (WV)
    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0283. Their
exemptions are effective as of December 20, 2016 and will expire on
December 20, 2018.

    As of December 29, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 45 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (79 FR 70920; 80 FR
5613):

Andrew P. Bivens (TN)
Everett D. Blevins (KY)
Kirk J. Brummeler (GA)
Travis M. Bryan (MA)
Robert A. Chess (PA)
John W. Condy (NY)
Kevin V. Cook (MO)
Guido Criscuolo, Jr. (CT)
Zachary L. Diehl (IL)
Andrea I. Dirksen (IA)
David D. Dowdy (IL)
Clarice L. Dunklin (LA)
Ricky L. Exler (FL)
Paul B. Fuerstenberg (WI)
Nathan M. Gallant (TX)
Louis A. Goodenough (IN)
Tyler L. Gravatt (ID)
Gary W. Honaker (VA)
David G. Horne (VA)
Glenn A. Keifer (SD)
Rex L. Kreutzer (NE)
Larry D. Lloyd (OR)
Dennis D. Markowski (WA)
William F. Melchert-Dinkel (MN)
Brit K. Miller (SD)
Charles B. Petersen (ID)
Anthony J. Politan (IN)
Emil T. Ricci (PA)
Arturo Robles (WY)
Robert F. Rothbauer (WI)
Michael A. Runyan, Jr. (NC)
John D. Sheets (NH)
Kyle L. Shuman (NY)
Jerry W. Smay (CA)
Gregory A. Smith (GA)
William S. Spaeth (WI)
Eloy G. Tijerina (TX)
Santos R. Torres (TX)
Leroy A. Traudt (NE)
Arthur R. Vance (VA)
Gerald S. Volpone, Jr. (MA)
Galen R. Watts (TX)
William R. Welch, Jr. (VA)
John E. Wildenmann (KY)
Edward D. Wright (IN)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0309. Their
exemptions are effective as of December 29, 2016 and will expire on
December 29, 2018.
    Each of the 110 drivers in the aforementioned groups qualifies for
a renewal of the exemption. They have maintained their required medical
monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would
compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-
year exemption period.
    These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each of the
110 drivers for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of
safety equal to that existing without the exemption. The drivers were
included in docket numbers FMCSA-2010-0328; FMCSA-2012-0282; FMCSA-
2012-0283; FMCSA-2014-0308; FMCSA-2014-0309.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by January 19, 2017.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 110 individuals from rule
prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating CMVs in interstate
commerce in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each
case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received
to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the medical condition of each applicant for an exemption from
rule prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating CMVs in interstate
commerce. That information is available by consulting the above cited
Federal Register publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

Submitting Comments

    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
in the search box insert the docket numbers FMCSA-2010-0328; FMCSA-
2012-0282; FMCSA-2012-0283; FMCSA-2014-0308; FMCSA-2014-0309 and click
the search button. When the new screen appears, click on the blue
``Comment Now!'' button on the right hand side of the page. On the new
page, enter information required including the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. If you submit your comments by mail or
hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\
by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after
the close of the comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert
the docket number FMCSA-2010-0328; FMCSA-2012-0282; FMCSA-2012-0283;
FMCSA-2014-0308; FMCSA-2014-0309 and click ``Search.'' Next, click
``Open Docket Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments
related to this notice.

    Issued on: December 8, 2016.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-30588 Filed 12-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 50 (Friday, March 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14505-14506]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05740]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0978; FRL-9908-07-Region-9]

Notice of Decision To Issue Clean Air Act PSD Permit for the Pio
Pico Energy Center

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9.

ACTION: Notice of final agency action.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that EPA Region 9 issued a final permit
decision for a Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permit to Pio Pico Energy Center, LLC (PPLLC) for the
construction of the Pio Pico Energy Center (PPEC).

DATES: EPA Region 9 issued a final PSD permit decision for the PPEC on
February 28, 2014. The PSD permit for the PPEC will become effective on
April 7, 2014. Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42
U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), judicial review of this final permit decision, to
the extent it is available, may be sought by filing a petition for
review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
within 60 days of March 14, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents relevant to the above-referenced permit are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. To arrange for viewing
of these documents, call Lisa Beckham at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Beckham, Permits Office (Air-3),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Key portions of the administrative record for
this decision (including the final permit, all public comments, EPA's
responses to the public comments, and additional supporting
information) are available through a link at Region 9's Web site,
www.epa.gov/region09/air/permit/r9-permits-issued.html#psd, or at
www.regulations.gov (Docket ID  EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0978). Anyone
who wishes to review the EPA Environmental Appeals Board (EAB or Board)
decision described below or documents in the EAB's electronic docket
for its decision related to this matter can obtain them at http://www.epa.gov/eab/.
    Notice of Final Action and Supplementary Information: EPA Region 9
issued its final permit decision to PPLLC authorizing the construction
and operation of the PPEC, PSD Permit No. SD 11-01, on February 28,
2014.
    EPA Region 9 initially issued a final PSD permit decision to PPLLC
for the PPEC on November 19, 2012. Three commenters filed petitions for
review of the Region's November 19, 2012 PSD permit decision for the
PPEC with EPA's EAB. On August 2, 2013, the Board issued a decision
remanding in part and denying review in part of the Region's November
19, 2012 PSD permit decision for the PPEC. See In re Pio Pico Energy
Center PSD Permit No. SD 11-01, PSD Appeal Nos. 12-04 through 12-06
(EAB, Aug. 2, 2013) (Order Remanding in Part and Denying Review in
Part). The Board remanded to Region 9 the emission limits for
particulate matter from the combustion turbines and directed Region 9
to prepare a revised Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis
for particulate matter for the Project's combustion turbines in
accordance with the Board's decision, including a new BACT
determination, after consideration of all of the relevant information.
The Board also directed Region 9 to reopen the public comment period to
provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the revisions to
its particulate matter BACT analysis. The EAB denied review of all
other issues.
    In addition, the Board's decision stated that once Region 9 issues
a final permit decision following the public comment period required by
the remand, the Region's final permit decision and the Board's decision
in this matter would become final agency action subject to judicial
review per 40 CFR 124.19(l). The Board's decision further stated that
the Board was not requiring, and would not accept, an appeal to the
Board of the final permit decision for the Project following remand in
this case.
    In response to the EAB's remand decision, Region 9 prepared a
revised particulate matter BACT analysis and BACT determination for the
emission limits for the Project's combustion turbines in accordance
with the Board's order, and proposed revised permit conditions for such
limits. In November of 2013, Region 9 issued a public notice seeking
public comment on this revised analysis and these revised particulate
matter permit conditions, and on December 17, 2013, Region 9 held a
public hearing to receive such comment.
    EPA has carefully reviewed each of the comments submitted and,
after consideration of the expressed views of all commenters, the
pertinent Federal statutes and regulations, and additional material
relevant to the application and contained in our Administrative Record,
EPA made a decision in accordance

with 40 CFR 52.21 to issue a final PSD permit to PPLLC for the PPEC.
    Following completion of the remand proceedings, pursuant to 40 CFR
124.19(l)(2), EPA Region 9 issued a final permit decision to PPLLC for
the PPEC on February 28, 2014. All conditions of the PPEC PSD permit,
Permit No. SD 11-01, issued February 28, 2014, become final and
effective on April 7, 2014.

    Dated: March 7, 2014.
Deborah Jordan,
Director, Air Division, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014-05740 Filed 3-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


May 25, 2012

EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF F1LING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER (7/1/2007)

EPA Registration Division contact:[insert name and telephone nu mber
with area code]

INSTRUCTIONS: Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide
petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please
insert "NA-Remove" and maintain the outline. Please do not change the
margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition.Simply  replace the
instructions that appear in green, i.e.,"[insert company name!," with
tbe information  specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

[Bayer CropScienceI

!Insert  petition number'!

LP.C !Ja-.,  l1.T1.'liL'd .1 pe:-.uude  pct Hion ([insert petition
number])  lron1 I.Bayer CropSciencej, [P.O. Box 12014,2 T.W. Alexander
Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709] prnr,l.., Jil. [HI "''ant  to
'c-ctHHl•nk e11" .  Icrop subgroup 13-078] .11  [2.01 p;trh JWr
million 1ppn1J. [Iow growing berry crop subgroup 13-07H (except
strawberry)] at LO.lSl part JKI  nu!ilnllt ppml. und [cucurbit
vegetables crop group 9] .,, [0.3] p.ut-- pet lll i lliun !ppn 1    IJ
'lll!llll' ,cnl!,l!!•-. ldl.t  ,,, II t  I :.,u;,.l l'l .'tdlll g the
l'kliiL'Iih -- 1  h'IIil Ill 'L' llnll .!(ll-) td  )( 2l

nl I;11 tin' IllIl'l nt  v, ht'i)IL'I ll1c d,H,: 'uppu1 h gran t mg. ol
the p .lll'l.'dl.'d h,:iotC' I    P

1   1-'lu!ll   ll'c'tol.,oft ''"- l ln plants. Lhe metabolism of
prothioconazole is adequately understood for purposes of establishing
these proposed tolerances.  Prothioconazole was extensively metabolized
in plants with the major residue found in all crops (wheat, peanuts and
sugar beets) being JAU6476-desthio with smaller amounts of various

iomers of JAU6476- hydroxy-desthio. and their conjugates also being
found. Triazolylalanine. triazolylhydroxypropionic acid. and
triazolylacetic acid, metabolites

1<PHONE_NUMBER>1111<PHONE_NUMBER>11111111111

M-431155-01-1

com!l'IB)J1 LO the tri azole-derivative clas:-. of fungicides. were
also found.  Based on the abovl! data the residues of concern in planh
are prothioconai.'ole and its metabolite JtCU6476-desrhio. The risk
a'sessment for the common metabolites ari<.;ing from  the

triazolc-dcriCativc fungicideibeing addre......,ed hC  t-he US
Triazole Task Force.  [n large anirnal..... the nature of re idue-; is
abo adequately under....tood for purposes of establishing

the pruposcd tolerances.  The residueof concem in edible tissues and
milk arc prothioconazolc. irs metabolites JAU647o-desthio,
JAU6476-4-hydroxy. and their conjuga tes that can be converted to these
three compounds by acid hydrol ysis.)

t,, melon. and -.qua'>h. The validated  LOQ'> were 0.01 ppm for IH-1
,2.4-triazole and the triazole

conjugatefor blueberry fruit. cranbeJTy fruit. cucumber. melon. and
'>quash. The analytical method for ana[y..;is of large animalti!-.'>Ues
indude-. extraction of the residues of concern, followed hy addition of
an internal standard to the extract.  The extract is then hydrolyzed to
release conjugates. partitioned and analyzed by LC/MS/MS as
prothioconazole, JAU6476-desthio  and J AU6476-4- hydroxy.  rhe method
for analysis of milk eliminated the initial extract ion Ctep in the
tissue method.I

lu"11111dj   "' n 'idrr( ' IResidue trials were conducted in the various
required regions across the United States and Canada in accordance with
the EPA and PMRA guidances for crop  field trials (OPPTS 860.1500: DACO
7.4.1: DACO 7.4.2) to supp011 tl1e tolerances requested nhove including
the following:

BushbenCranberry: A total of 6 field trials were conducted in the USA
and Canada on

cranberry a'->  a repre cntative of the Low Growing BetTy Subgroup
except

Strawheny (Crop Subgroup  13-07H).

C'ucurbit Vegetables: A total of 24 fidd trials (8 trial each on cucumb
r. muskmelon.

and squash) were conducLed  in the USA and Canada.

, •   't	o •   •  , •	IProthiocona.wle exhibits Cmg/kg/day
while the dermal LD50 was >2000 mg/kg/day and the four-hour rat
inhalat.ion LC50 >4990 mglm3 •  Prothioconazole was not iJTitating to
the eye or skin of rabbits and did nol t:ause skin sensitization in
guinea pigs.)

_    (;( 1111    ' >llt'    (Prothioconazole  is not mutagenic. Slightly
positive and

equivocal  re:-11on"c een  in in vitro CC.10tc-..t!-. . j

/11  1/11-..ubchronic lt>xicity study in rats. Determination of cell
countin  the spleen and perfomwnce 1)f the plaque-forming as..;ay
'>hov:,ed no eCimmu notO.CtCity at do!->eup to 500 mg/kg.lday (the
highest do"e tested) for 31 days.  The rc... uil'i of thl'..;tudy. in
addition to additional '>tudic-.. conducted u..;ing mice and dogs.
suppon that prothiocona7.ole is not considered to he immunotoxic.l

,	• •,..	•     ' I<    , •• ,, '', ' •  ,	IProthioconaJ.olc
is not considered a primary rcprodudive toxicant in a two-Generation rat
reproduction ..;tudy. The NOAEL ror parental tox i(.;ity as well as rhe
NOAEL for reproductive and neonatal effects is 95.6 m kg bw/da y  In the
rat oral developmental toxi :ity .-,tudy the fetal NOAEL was 500

mgfkg ln.vid.t) and the maternal NOAEL V>a:-. 80 mg/kg hvdday. A doe
leCCI or 1000

mg/kg hVIJday aJmini-..tered to the rut by the dermal route doenot
elicit developmental

toxicity. In the rabbit, prothioconazole doe" not produce developmental
toxicity at dose levels exceeding the maximum tolerated dose. Thu:-..
prothioconazole is not tcratogeni<.: in l'ithcr the rat or rabhil.]

.;,     '	•:-ho"

" (	n  . ,	IProthioconazole is not ca rcinogenic in either the rat or
the mouse even at dose levels in the rat exceeding the maximum tolerated
dose. The liver ami kidney arc target organs or prothio<.:onazole for
non - neoplasti<.: toxicity in the rat, mouse

and do-g. The  lov.cst NOAEL established on the ba"is of Jon!!-term
toxicit v- 'tudies is 5

mg!kg hw/day in the rat chronic toxicity/carcinogent<:ity stud y and the
dog 52- week

toxicity study. I

-..:       '1  , ,; .•I     ,. ' 	•  , )..,	[The major metaholi te
of prothioconazole in the rat. plants and large animal' i-. JAU6-t76-de
thio. Therefore. a comprehensive evaluation of the mammalian toxicity of
J AU6476-desthio has been performed.

The acute oral. dermal. and inhalation toxicity of JAU6476-de..;thio in
the rat is low

( LD50 valw.:': 2806/1506mg/kg 1 male/female!. >5000mg!kg. 4-hour LC50:

>5077mg/m '. rc pectivcly). It is non-ineyes and has no cutaneous
sensitizing. potential by topical application.

The short and long-tenn ornl toxicity of J AU6476-de thio has been
investigated by

dietary admini tration  in the rat. mouse and dog. The common  target
organ  in all 3

-.pecies is the livcr. Secondarv. effects on the th.vroid  m the rat a
nd do!.:.!.

were as:-.ociated

'Nith increased hepatic enz yme induction.  In the long term studies, 51
weeks in the rat and 30 wech in the dog. the NOAEL for the rat and the
dog- were  I. I   and  I 0.1  mVk2... bw/day, respective!y. J A
U6476-desthio is not carcinogenic in either  the ra t  or the mouse.

The  NOAEL selected for human risk a;.;sessment is 1 .1  mg/kg bw/clay
established in the combined  chronic  toxicity and carcinogenicity stud
y in the rat.

JAU6-+76-deslhi<) was negati ve for mutagenicity and genotoxicity in all
in ritro and in

rim studies  both '-"'ith and"ithout metabolic  activation.

In a two-generation reproduction study the maternal  NOAEL  was 2.7
mg/kg bw/day  and the NOAEL for reproductive and neonatal effects I 0.0
mg/kg bw/day. The main targets

at  the highest dose  were dystocia (probably ->econdary to hepatic tox
i ci ty ), decreased  pup viabi lity. growth retard at ion and low
incidence of cleft palates.

In the developmental  toxicit y 'tudies deft  palateC  were :-.een in
the rat and rabbit at the highest doe  leveb and Cupemumerary rihin the
rat a t  lower dose lcC'els. The oral NOAEL i-.  l mg/kg  bw/day in the
rat and 2 mglkg/day in the rabbit.

A developmental ncmotoxicity "tudy tDNT)  in rats wa:-. conducted  with

JAU6476-desthio athe anticipated  dietary exposu re is mainl y to
JAU6476-desthio and not the parent. No evidence  of neurotoxicity was
seen in this study. i ncluding  no compound-related effects  involving
neurobehavioral tests and neuropathology.

Compou nd-related  effects "ere limited  to overt toxicity and
developmental effects which were con"istent  with effcch seen  in other
developmentaltoxicitstudies. The overall NOAEL  was 3.6 mg./kg bw/day.j

u ''''"•t  ,, ,  ,I• 	.,,	'

i i>t c   un       , ,L    (An aggregate risk assc),sment was conducted
for all existing registered  u:-.e-. on  barley: dried beans and peas
(Crop Group 6C): canola;  peanuts; wheat: triticale: soybeans: 'ugar
beets: cereal grain crop group  15 and 16 (except  sorghum)

sweet corn: rice: al fall'a: potato a nd this proposed  petition
requesting  toleranceon

cucu rbits (Crop (]roup ). blueberry (Crop Group  1 3B). and cranberry
(Crop  Group

13H).  A previous Tier 2 dietary risk assessment wa:-. conducted by EPA
(PC Code

11396 I) on December h_  20 I 0. Residues  for the additional  crop
groups  were based on highest average  l'ield trial (HAFT) for acute
assessment and the average  re-.idue for chronic assessment.

The acute toxicity endpoin t  U!-.ed  in the acute assessment was the
NOAEL of 2.0

mg/kg/day from the prothioconazole-desthio rabbit developmentaltoxi<:ity
study as

dc crihed in the Agency"HED  risk assessment memorandum on
prothioconai'.ole dated

Januar y 5. 2009. No acute endpoint 'A-as identified for the general
U.S. population: Female!-.. 13-9 years of age. C'vas the only
population '-Ubgroup to be included in the aLresults l'rom applying a I
OOx unce1ta im y factor to the NOAEL of 1.1 mg/kg/day from the rat
chronicConcogenicity  prothioconal'olc-desthio toxicity 'iludy.

The acute and chronic dietary assessment<> for combined food and water
exposure show

25<-r  utili?ation of the aRID by female!-. 13-49 years and
63<'utilization of the cRfD by the most sensitive subgroup. all infants.
 Rc!-.ults from the dietary exposure assessments

<.kmPilStra tc a reasonable certainty that no hann to the overall U.S.
population or any populat iun '->Ubgroup will result from the U!-.C or
prothioc011 110l e 011 the above crops.D

'"'' (An acute. Tier 2 dietary (rood only) ri-;k as<.;essmcnt  was
conducted. For the population subgroup  females 13-49 years old. the
acute a nalysis indicates an e-xposure of 3.75% of the aRID at the 951h
percenti le. Results  from a ch ronic, Tier 2 dietary (food

on l y) risk assessment show that the most highl y exposed popul ation
'iubgroup i!-.  children I to 2 years with an exposure equal to 9.7c/c
of the cRtD followed by aJI infants at 3.9Clc. Chronic exposure to the
overall U.S. population i-. 3.2"k  of the cRtD.]

' 	fJ  ,,. ,,,,  l'i •''  !No monitoring data are available for
residues of prothioconazole in drinking water. and EPA has established
no health adv isory levels or maximum contami nant leveb for res iducof
prot.hioconazole in drinking water. In order to addres-; drinking water.
water was included in the dietary analvsis for food. DEEM

anal ysc" v.-ere performed using the upper hound estimates for the
cranberry crop scenario: the EDWC for the acute and chronic a <.,e!-.
ment is 94 pph. For the population subgroup females 13-49 year-. old.
the acute analysiresults in an exposure of 21 ( fl  of the aRID.

Re:--.ults from a chronic. Tier 2 dietary risk u:-,:--.essrnent indicate
that the most highly

exposed population subgroup was all infants with an exposure equal  to
59% of the cRfD. Chronic exposure to lhe overall U.S. population i!-.
18% of the cRfD.D

C  ,	,   '"! ,	[Prothioconazole j..,  not regi...tered for residential
uses nor arc any registrations pending for 'uch  use. I

[Prmhiocouazole ia member of the conazole family of fungicides. The
cumulative effect!-. of the primary common metabolite!-. are being
addressed by the US Triaznlc Task Force. I

l  C  ,,'i'  tf, .,,,, (In the Agency'.., HED risk a..;sc<..smcnt
memorandum on

prothioconaLOie dated October  13. 2006. it is stated that
quantification of acute risk to the general population including
infant.;; and children inot required. Based  on the conservative
exposure a sumptiont'i described above and on the completeness of the
toxicity data, it can  be concluded that total  food and drinking water
exposure to prothioconazolc irom  all proposed uses will utilize  25%
of the acute  RfD  for females 13-

41.)  years old ami 21.2% of the chronic RtDs for the overall U.S.
population. EPA generall y has no concerns for exposures below  100%. of
r.he RtD. because the RID represents the level  at or helow which  daily
 aggregate exposure over  a lifetime will not pose appreciable risb to
human health.j

2 . /nftlllh  tlltl, ,,, tJ'•  '' [In the Agency"s HED  risk
assessment memorandum on prothioconazole d;.tled January 5. 2009,  it is
stated: in rats. The effects seen  in these  studies suggest that
offspring are more susceptible:

'-''-'	'-

ot'f pring  effectwere seen  at leCgeneral. were of comparable or
greater severity compared to the effects observed in adults.  However.
the point of departure for the most sensitive of these stud ies (the
rabbit developmental toxi ity)  is lower  than that of the other
studies (2 mglkg/day), and  is based on effects observed in the fetus.
not the parent. Therefore, the offspring are considered to be protected
and there  is no need  to retain  the  IOX FQPA  factor. and  it is
reduced to I X."

EPA also stated    assessment.

In addition to the adequacy of  the toxicity database, there  are also
no uncertainties with respect  lo the exposure database. Both  the
dietary food and  water  exposure assessments are conservative in
nature.  Additionally, there  is no potential for residential exposure.

In Bayer"s  dmmic exposure assessment. the most highly exposed
population subgroup. all infants. uti lizecl63 Cfr   or the chronic RfD.
 EPA  generally has no concerns for

exposures helnw  I OOC1'

of the RfD. hecause the RfD  represents the level  at or below

which  daily  aggregate exposure over  a lifetime C),.'ill  not  pose
appreciable risks  to human health.!

hlf< n;,,•rr•Jt/1: I oft r(l/, t

[lntemational tolerances/MRLs for prothioconazole have  been established
for various  crops. Hov,:ever. none  have  been established for
bushbetTies. low growing berries or cucurbit vegctahles.J


[Federal Register: January 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 16)]
[Notices]
[Page 4055-4056]
[DOCID:fr26ja10-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13572-000]

Issaquena County Board of Supervisors; Notice of Competing
Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting
Comments and Motions To Intervene

January 15, 2010.
    On August 25, 2009, Issaquena County Board of Supervisors filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Fitler
Bend Hydrokinetic Project, to be located on the Mississippi River, in
East Carroll Parish, Louisiana and Issaquena County, Mississippi.
    The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant
the permit holder priority to file a license application during the
permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder
to perform any land disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands
or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed Fitler Bend Hydrokinetic Project consists of: (1) 25
proposed 200 kilowatt Underwater Electric Kite generating units having
a total installed capacity of 5 megawatts, mounted to a 200-foot-long
by 80-foot-wide barge; (2) a 7-mile-long, 115 kilovolt transmission
line; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The proposed Fitler Bend
Hydrokinetic Project would have an average annual generation of 43.8
gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Gene Fulton, President, Issaquena County Board
of Supervisors, 132 Court Street, Mayersville, MS 39113; phone: (662)
873-2761.
    FERC Contact: Kim Carter,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Competing Application: This application competes with Project No.
13481-000 filed May 22, 2009. Competing applications must be filed on
or before September 8, 2009.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene: 60 days from
the issuance of this notice. Comments, motions to intervene, may be
filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)
and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-
Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, documents may be
paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight copies should be
mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For more information on how to
submit these types of filings please go to the Commission's Web site
located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information
about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed
or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13572) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-1390 Filed 1-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P