[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 11, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31903-31906]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14512]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 100 and 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0224]
RIN 1625-AA08, AA00

Special Local Regulations; Safety Zones; Recurring Marine Events
in Sector Columbia River

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation in
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Columbia River Zone for recurring
marine events. During the recurring events, these regulated areas would
be activated and would restrict vessels from portions of the waterway.
These events were previously published as safety zones, temporary
safety zones or individual regulated areas and have been revised and
consolidated into a single as special local regulation in order to
expedite public notification of events and ensure the protection of the
maritime public from hazards associated with the annual events.

DATES: This rule is effective July 11, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://

www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-0244 in the ``SEARCH'' box and
click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated
with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LCDR Laura Springer, Waterways Management Division,
Marine Safety Unit Portland, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is establishing a new special local regulation for
nine recurring marine events in the Sector Columbia River. On May 9,
2017, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
titled, ``Special Local Regulations; Safety Zones; Recurring Marine
Events in Sector Columbia River'' (82 FR 21495). There we stated why we
issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action
related to the regulated areas. During the comment period that ended
June 8, 2017, we received no comments.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register, due to The Big Float
marine event occurring on July 15, 2017. This event was previously
covered under a Temporary Final Rule. Delaying this rule would be
impracticable due to the date of the event.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1233. The Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River has determined that
large numbers of spectator vessels and marine traffic are expected to
congregate around these event locations, and regulated areas are needed
to protect both spectators and participants from the safety hazards
associated with the event.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published May
9, 2017. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from
the proposed rule in the NPRM.
    The Coast Guard is revising and renaming 33 CFR 100.1302 to cover
marine events within the Captain of the Port Zone Columbia River and
removing Sec. Sec.  100.1303 (Annual Kennewick, Washington, Columbia
Unlimited Hydroplane Races), 100.1305 (Richland, Washington, west coast
outboard championship hydro races), 165.1341 (Portland Dragon Boat
Races, Portland, OR), and 165.1342 (Annual Roy Webster Cross-Channel
Swim, Columbia River, Hood River, OR).
    These changes convert two existing safety zones (those currently in
Sec. Sec.  165.1341 and 165.1342) and temporary safety zones
established annually for four events (The Big Float, Swim the Snake,
Richland Regatta, and Columbia Crossing) into regulated areas in Sec.
100.1302. This will consolidate and simplify our existing special local
regulations.
    Additionally, this rule reorganizes and consolidates existing
Sector Columbia River COTP Zone marine event regulations in 33 CFR part
100 and marine event safety zones under 33 CFR part 165. This action
eliminates the burden and confusion caused by the current configuration
of numerous individual regulations spread across two CFR parts.
    As large numbers of spectator vessels and marine traffic are
expected to congregate around the event location, the regulated areas
are needed to protect both spectators and participants from the safety
hazards associated with the event. During the enforcement period of the
regulated areas, persons and vessels would be prohibited from entering,
transiting through, remaining, anchoring or mooring within the zone
unless specifically authorized by the COTP or the designated
representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State
and local agencies in the enforcement of these regulated areas. These
events are listed below in the text of the regulation.
    Certain special local regulations are listed without known dates or
times. Coast Guard Sector Columbia River will cause notice of the
enforcement of these regulated areas to be made by all appropriate
means to affect the widest publicity among the effected segments of the
public, including publication in the Federal Register, Local Notice to
Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and 13563
(``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies to
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and,
if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs''), directs agencies to reduce regulation
and control regulatory costs and provides that ``for every one new
regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for
elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently
managed and controlled through a budgeting process.''
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
not reviewed it.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the regulated areas. Vessels
will only be restricted from special local regulation areas for a short
duration of time. Vessels may transit in portions of the affected
waterway except for those areas covered by the proposed regulated
areas. Notifications of exact dates and times of the enforcement period
will be made through notices of enforcements published in the Federal
Register. In addition, we will inform the local maritime community via
the Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, or both. No
new or additional restrictions would be imposed on vessel traffic.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments

from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast
Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
regulated areas may be small entities, for the reasons stated in
section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves regulated areas for swim events and other marine events.
It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h)
of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion
Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Parts 100 and 165

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways, Harbors, Security measures.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR parts 100 and 165 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Revise Sec.  [thinsp]100.1302 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.1302  Special Local Regulations; Marine Events within the
Captain of the Port Zone Columbia River.

    This section applies to the marine events listed in Table 1 of this
section. The regulations in this section will be enforced for the
duration of each event, on or about the dates indicated in Table 1 of
this section. Annual notice of the exact dates and times of the
effective period of the regulations in this section with respect to
each event, the geographical description of each regulated area, and
details concerning the nature of the event and the number of
participants and type(s) of vessels involved will be provided to the
local maritime community through the Local Notice to Mariners,
Broadcast Notice to Mariners, or both, well in advance of the events.
If the event does not have a date listed, then the exact dates and
times of the enforcement will be announced through a Notice of
Enforcement in the Federal Register. Mariners should consult the
Federal Register or their LNM to remain apprised of minor schedule or
event changes. Thirteenth Coast Guard District LNM can be found at:
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/. The application requirements of Sec.
100.15 apply to all marine events listed in the Table of this section.
    (a) The Coast Guard may patrol each event area under the direction
of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM). PATCOM may be
contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign ``PATCOM.''
Official patrol vessels may consist of any Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned or approved
by the Captain of the Port, Sector Columbia River.
    (b) PATCOM may control the movement of all vessels in the regulated
area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel
shall come

to an immediate stop and comply with the lawful directions issued.
Failure to comply with a lawful direction may result in expulsion from
the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
    (c) PATCOM may delay or terminate any marine event in this subpart
at any time it is deemed necessary to ensure the safety of life or
property. Such action may be justified as a result of weather, traffic
density, spectator operation or participant behavior.
    (d) Vessels may not transit the regulated areas without PATCOM
approval. Vessels permitted to transit must operate at a no wake speed,
in a manner which will not endanger participants or other crafts in the
event.
    (e) Spectators or other vessels shall not anchor, block, loiter, or
impede the transit of event participants or official patrol vessels in
the regulated areas during the effective dates and times, or dates and
times as modified through LNM, unless authorized by an official patrol
vessel.

                                                     Table 1
                         [All coordinates listed in the Table reference Datum NAD 1983]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Number               Date                Event              Sponsor                    Location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............  First or second      Rose Fest Dragon    Portland-Kaohsiung  Portland, OR. Regulated area
                   weekend in June.     Boat Races.         Sister              includes all waters of the
                                                            Association.        Willamette River shore to shore,
                                                                                bordered on the north by the
                                                                                Hawthorne Bridge, and on the
                                                                                south by the Marquam Bridge.
2...............  One day in May or    Spring Testing      Tri-Cities Water    Kennewick, WA. Regulated area
                   June.                Hydroplane races.   Follies             includes all navigable waters
                                                            Association.        within the Columbia River in the
                                                                                vicinity of Columbia Park,
                                                                                commencing at the Interstate 395
                                                                                Bridge and continuing up river
                                                                                approximately 2.0 miles and
                                                                                terminating at the northern end
                                                                                of Wade Island.
3...............  Second weekend in    Richland Regatta    Northwest Power     Richland, WA. Regulated area
                   June.                Hydroplane races.   Boat Association.   includes all navigable waters of
                                                                                the Columbia River in the
                                                                                vicinity of Howard Amon Park,
                                                                                between River Miles 337 and 338.
4...............  Last Tuesday         Kennewick           Tri-Cities Water    Kennewick, WA. Regulated area
                   through Sunday in    Hydroplane Races.   Follies             includes all navigable waters
                   July.                                    Association.        within the Columbia River in the
                                                                                vicinity of Columbia Park,
                                                                                commencing at the Interstate 395
                                                                                Bridge and continuing up river
                                                                                approximately 2.0 miles and
                                                                                terminating at the northern end
                                                                                of Wade Island.
5...............  One Saturday in      The Big Float,      Human Access        Portland, OR. Regulated area
                   July.                group inner-tube    Project.            includes all navigable waters of
                                        float.                                  the Willamette River, in
                                                                                Portland, Oregon, enclosed by
                                                                                the Hawthorne Bridge, the
                                                                                Marquam Bridge, and west of a
                                                                                line beginning at the Hawthorne
                                                                                Bridge at approximate location
                                                                                45[deg]30'50'' N.;
                                                                                122[deg]40'21'' W., and running
                                                                                south to the Marquam Bridge at
                                                                                approximate location
                                                                                45[deg]30'27'' N.;
                                                                                122[deg]40'11'' W.
6...............  Second Saturday in   Swim the Snake....  Blue Mountain       Perry, WA. Regulated area
                   August.                                  Resource            includes all navigable waters,
                                                            Conservation and    bank-to-bank of the Snake River,
                                                            Development.        500 yards upstream and 500 yards
                                                                                downstream from the Washington
                                                                                State Highway 261 Bridge at the
                                                                                approximate position of
                                                                                46[deg]35'23'' N.;
                                                                                118[deg]13'10'' W.
7...............  Annually on Labor    Roy Webster Cross   Hood River County   Hood River, OR. Regulated area
                   Day.                 Channel Swim.       Chamber of          includes all waters of the
                                                            Commerce.           Columbia River between River
                                                                                Mile 169 and River Mile 170.
8...............  First or second      Portland Dragon     DragonSports USA..  Portland, OR. Regulated area
                   weekend in           Boat Races.                             includes the western side of the
                   September.                                                   Willamette River extending from
                                                                                Tom McCall Waterfront Park
                                                                                between the Hawthorne and
                                                                                Marquam Bridges, Portland, OR:
                                                                                Line one starting at 45-30'49''
                                                                                N./122-40'24'' W. then heading
                                                                                east to 45-30'49'' N./122-
                                                                                40'22'' W. then heading south to
                                                                                45-30'29'' N./122-40'08'' W.
                                                                                then heading west to 45-30'26''
                                                                                N./122-40'14'' W. then heading
                                                                                north ending at 45-30'49'' N./
                                                                                122-40'24'' W.
9...............  First Saturday       Columbia Crossing   3 Rivers Road       Pasco, WA. Regulated area
                   after Labor Day      Swim.               Runners.            includes all navigable waters,
                   weekend.                                                     bank-to-bank of the Columbia
                                                                                River in Pasco, Washington,
                                                                                between river mile 332 and river
                                                                                mile 335.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. Sec.  100.1303 and 100.1305  [Removed]

0
3. Remove Sec. Sec.  100.1303 and 100.1305.

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
4. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

Sec. Sec.  165.1341 and 165.1342  [Removed]

0
5. Remove Sec. Sec. [thinsp]165.1341 and 165.1342.

    Dated: June 28, 2017.
B.C. Mcpherson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2017-14512 Filed 7-10-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: March 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 44)]
[Notices]
[Page 11911]
[DOCID:fr05mr08-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-401-000]

Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power Company; Notice of Issuance of
Order

February 27, 2008.
    Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power Company (Cheyenne) filed an
application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate
schedule. The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale
of energy, capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates.
Cheyenne also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In
particular, Cheyenne requested that the Commission grant blanket
approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and
assumptions of liability by Cheyenne.
    On February 26, 2008, pursuant to delegated authority, the
Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the
request for blanket approval under part 34 (Director's Order). The
Director's Order also stated that the Commission would publish a
separate notice in the Federal Register establishing a period of time
for the filing of protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be
heard concerning the blanket approvals of issuances of securities or
assumptions of liability by Cheyenne, should file a protest 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, 385.214
(2007). The Commission encourages the electronic submission of protests
using the FERC Online link at http://www.ferc.gov.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is
March 27, 2008.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket
approvals by the deadline above, Cheyenne is authorized to issue
securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor,
indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another
person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful
object within the corporate purposes of Cheyenne, compatible with the
public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such
purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Cheyenne's issuance of securities or assumptions
of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also 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. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-4168 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

	OFFICE  OF

	PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

	TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM	PC Code No. 056801

	DP #: 334714

	Date: May 02, 2007

Subject: Revised carbaryl drinking water assessment including
time-series simulations

To: 		Chistina Scheltema, Chemical Review Manager, SRRD

		Michael Goodis, Chief, SRRD

		Felicia Fort, Risk Assesor, HED

		Michael Metzger, Chief, HED

From:		Dirk Young, Ph.D., Environmental Engineer, EFED

	  	Elizabeth Behl, Chief ERB 4, EFED

Introduction

This memo formalizes the drinking water assessment previously sent under
D337058.  The estimates here have considered newly submitted data
(aerobic aquatic metabolism), regional percent crop areas, and includes
time series for use in refined HED assessments.  A previously sent email
(see D337058) includes the electronic copies of refined time series of
PRZM/EXAMS simulations for carbaryl.  This memo also provides an updated
surface water monitoring summary.

Models and Scenarios

The surface water simulations were performed with PRZM version 3.12 beta
(dated May 24, 2001) and EXAMS version 2.98.04 (dated July 18, 2002).
These models were run with the EFED PRZM EXAMS shell, PE4.

During problem formulations meetings, BEAD, EFED, and SRRD selected
scenarios of greatest importance (in terms of usage and vulnerability)
for simulation of surface water concentrations with PRZM and EXAMS.  The
selected scenarios are summarized in Table 1.  One other scenario that
was discussed in the problem formulation meeting but was later not
modeled was a Michigan blueberry scenario.  EFED discarded this
simulation because blueberries are grown in Michigan in Hydrological
Group B soils which are not conducive to runoff and therefore would not
be a vulnerable surface water scenario in terms of PRZM/EXAMS
simulations; thus the blueberry use would be covered by the other more
conservative scenarios already provided.

During the problem formulation meetings, it was concluded that regional
percent crop areas should be applied to the scenarios. These PCA
adjustments have important implications regarding the spatial
representation of these simulations.  In this regard, Table 1 below
gives the names of the time series simulation files that were sent,
along with a description of the relevance of each simulation with
respect to its ability to represent particular areas.  Table 1 also
gives the mechanisms and dates of pesticide applications for each of the
simulation and the file name for the  time series of daily values that
have been previously sent.

Table 1.  Decsription of the simulations that have been sent
electronically.

Description and Relevance	Regional PCA	Application type	App Dates	Time
Series File Name

Georgia Peaches with the optional Dormant Spray, protective of USA	0.38
Aerial application; 3 in season at 3 lb and 1 dormant at 3 lb (Note that
due to model limitations, the last application is 2 lb short of
allowable)	7-1, 8, 15; 10-15	ga peach with dormant regional PCA.csv

Georgia Peaches without the optional dormant Spray,  protective of USA
0.38	Aerial application; 3 in season at 3 lb 	7-1, 8, 15	ga peach No
dormant regional PCA.csv

California Peaches with the optional dormant spray, protective of
California	0.56	ground spray; 3 in season at 3 lb and 1 dormant at 3 lb
(Note that due to model implementation difficulties, the last
application is 1 lb in excess of max seasonal)	7-1, 8, 15; Oct 15	CA
peach with dormant regional PCA.csv

California Peaches without the optional dormant spray, of California
0.56	3 in season at 3 lb, 7 day interval, aerial	7-1, 8, 15	CA peach NO
dormant regional PCA.csv

Florida Citrus, protective of FL citrus	0.38	three 5-lb applications, 14
day interval aerial	1- 4, 18, 2-1	FL citrus regional PCA.csv

California Citrus should be protective of California	0.56	three 5-lb
applications, 7 day interval, aerial	1-4, 18, 2-1	CA citrus regular
regional PCA.csv

CA citrus alternative 12 lb application, protective of California	0.56
single 12-lb application, aerial	Jan 4	CA citrus 12 lb regional PCA.csv

California Grapes, protective of California	0.56	five 2 lb applications,
aerial	6-1, 8, 17, 24, 7-1	CA grape regional PCA.csv

PA Apple, protective of Mid Atlantic apples	0.46	five 3-lb applications,
14 days interval, aerial	6-1, 15, 29, 7-12, 26	PA apple regional PCA.csv

Pennsylvania one thinning application, protective of Mid Atlantic apples
0.46	Single 3-lb application, aerial	April 15	PA apple thinning regional
PCA.csv

PA, one thinning application at 2 lb (BEAD value for ~90% use),
protective of Mid Atlantic apples	0.46	Single 2-lb application , aerial
April 15	PA apple thinning regional PCA 2lb less than label.csv

Apple Oregon, protective of Western apples	0.63	five 3-lb applications,
14 days interval	4-15, 29, 5-11, 25, 6-4	OR apple springtime regional
PCA.csv

OR, one thinning application; protective of Western apples	0.63	single
3-lb application , aerial	June 15	OR apple thinning regional PCA.csv

OR, one thinning application at 2lb (BEAD value for ~90% use),
protective of Western apples	0.63	single 2-lb application , aerial	June
15	OR apple thinning regional PCA 2 lb less than label.csv

FL Strawberry with the regional PCA, protective of entire USA	0.38	five
2-lb applications, ground spray	1-3, 10, 17, 24, 2-1	FL strawberry
regional PCA.csv

CA strawberry, representative of California 	0.56	five 2-lb
applications, ground spray	3-3, 10, 17, 24, 31	CA strawberry regional
PCA.csv (used CA lettuce scenario as surrogate)

Chemical Input Parameters for Model Simulations

Table 2 summarizes the chemical input parameters which were selected in
accordance with guidance (EFED, 2002) for use in PRZM/EXAMS.  For the
most part, these parameters are the same as those in the previous
assessment (see D288455), with the most significant exceptions being the
estimate for aquatic metabolic degradation and the foliar washoff rate.

In the previous assessment, the aerobic aquatic metabolism half life
input parameter was 29.6 days and was based on an indirect relationship
to soil degradation, which according to EFED guidance (EFED, 2002) is to
be used if data are lacking (as in the previous case).  In the period
since that assessment, the registrant has submitted new studies (MRID
46580701, 46580702) to directly address aquatic aerobic metabolism, and
those studies show that carbaryl is stable to metabolic degradation in
aqueous environments.  This newer information is reflected in Table 2.

	Also, in the previous assessment a foliar washoff rate was calculated
using data from open literature.  Those calculation procedures are
described in D288376.  However, a review of this procedure revealed that
the calculated values in D288376 are not the appropriate parameters for
use in PRZM, and thus the procedure described in D288376 should not be
used.  Therefore, in this assessment the default value for foliar
extraction were used, as specified by EFED guidance (EFED, 2002).

Table 2. Carbaryl Parmeter Inputs to PRZM/EXAMS

Parameter	Value	Source	Comments

Molecular Wt	201.22 g/mol

Solubility	32 mg/L

Vapor Pressure	1.36 x 10-6 torr at 25 C	D26726, Ferrira and Seiber
(1981) as appears in D267276

	Henry’s law Constant	1.28 x 10 -8 atm/ m3/mol	Suntio, et al. (1988)
as appears in D288455 and  D267276

	Hydrolysis Half life 	12 days at pH = 7	MRID 00163847

44759301; D288455

	Koc	198 mL/g	D288455

	Aerobic Aquatic half life	Insignificant with respect to hydrolysis	MRID
46580701, 46580702	New submission. On the order of 100 days, but much
unextracted material, and hydrolysis likely source of degradation

Aqueous photolysis	21 days	D288455

	Aerobic Soil Metabolism	12 days	D288455	Single study. 3X the single
value

Foliar degradation	3.71 days (0.187 per day)	D288455

	Foliar extraction	0.5 per cm	EFED, 2002	default

Model Results

Concentrations resulting from model simulations are given in Table 3.
All concentrations were adjusted by a percent cropped area (PCA) factor
(in this case regional rather than nation PCAs), as based on OPP
guidance (OPP, 2000) and as described earlier in Table 1. In addition to
the point estimates for drinking water exposure described above.  The
daily time series of concentrations have also been provided to HED in a
previous email (D337058).  The time series of estimates are intended for
use in refined HED dietary assessments.

The quality of the analysis is directly related to the quality of the
input parameters.  In general, the fate data for carbaryl are good.  The
paucity of soil and aquatic metabolism data is the main limitation of
the data set.  Because metabolism values are set to the upper 90%
confidence limit of the mean, the simulated concentrations will be
conservative estimates.  Inputs regarding application dates and rates
add additional uncertainty.  To address application rate uncertainty,
EFED used the maximum allowable rate for most cases, but also supplied
results based on BEAD-estimated “typical” rates in some cases.
Application dates are known to have significant impacts on results and
uncertainty regarding dates remains significant in this assessment.  The
dates used in this assessment were based on discussions with BEAD.

Table 3.  1-in-10 year surface water concentrations from PRZM/EXAMS
estimated using regional PCAs

Simulation Description	Acute	Chronic	Cancer

Georgia peach, Aerial Foliar Application; 3 in season at 3 lb and 1
dormant at 3 lb (Note that last application is 2 lb short of allowable
21	1.8	1.5

Georgia Peach without the dormant spray.  Aerial Foliar Application; 3
in season at 3 lb	21	1.4	1.2

CA peach with dormant spray. ground Foliar Application; 3 in season at 3
lb and 1 dormant at 3 lb (Note that last application is 1 lb in excess
of max seasonal)	21	2.0	1.3

CA peach without dormant spray.  Aerial Foliar Application; 3 in season
at 3 lb	21	1.8	1.0

FL citrus. 5 lb, 3 times, Aerial	66	4.1	2.8

CA citrus. 5 lb, 3 times, Aerial	35	2.8	2.2

CA citrus 12 lb. single 12 lb application. Aerial	44	3.4	2.5

CA grape. 2 lb 5 applications, 7 day interval. Aerial	30	2.7	2.7

Pennsylvania apple thinning, Single 3 lb app	18	1.0	0.54

Pennsylvania apple, 5 applications of 3 lb, 14-day interval	108	8.1	4.8

OR apple springtime 3 lb 5 times, 14 day interval	27	3.6	3.0

Thinning only, Single 3 lb	13.6	0.81	0.61

FL strawberry, Ground spray 2 lb 5 times, 7 day interval	64	4.5	3.6

CA strawberry Ground spray 2 lb 5 times, 7 day interval	58	3.7	1.7

Effects of Drinking Water Treatment

Some evidence (Whittaker et al., 1982) that conventional drinking water
treatment—that is, coagulation, flocculation and settling—reduces
carbaryl concentration up to 43%.  This is based on a study of
wastewater containing carbaryl treated with alum at 100 mg L-1 and 1 mg
L-1 of anionic polymer.  In addition, ozone has been shown to be 99%
effective at removing carbaryl from water (Shevchenko et al.,1982) and
removes it from water at a rate too fast to measure (Mason et al.,
1990); however, ozonation is infrequently used in public drinking water
in the United States.  Evidence suggests that chlorine and hypochlorite
may be ineffective at degrading carbaryl (Mason et al., 1990).  Based on
the hydrolysis data, softening would be expected to substantially reduce
carbaryl concentrations (via alkaline hydrolysis), as softening raises
the pH of the water as high as 11.  Softening is used in areas where
hard water is problematic. The Office of Pesticide Programs currently
does not have sufficient information to account for locations where
water softening processes are used at public drinking water treatment
facilities, and thus cannot systematically use this information in to
refine drinking water concentrations.

Monitoring: Surface Water Update

	EFED finalized the Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk assessment
for carbaryl in 2003 (USEPA 2003).  That assessment contained an aquatic
exposure assessment (including drinking water) as well as an ecological
risk assessment.  The Carbaryl Interim Reregistration Eligibility
Decision (IRED) was published for comment in 2004, and EFED completed a
response to those comments in 2005 (USEPA 2005).   Since that time, EFED
has obtained additional carbaryl monitoring data and summarizes it
below. Because an assessment of monitoring data was the basis of
exposure estimates from urban uses of carbaryl, special focus has been
given to updating those data sources.

NAWQA tc \l3 "NAWQA

e mean concentration was 0.11 μg/L, with a standard deviation of   0.43
μg/L.  In a summary of pesticide occurrence and concentrations for 40
NAWQA stream sites with primarily agricultural basins, carbaryl was
detected in 11% of the samples (N = 1,001) with a maximum concentration
of 1.5 µg/L.

In a report released in 2006 summarizing pesticide results from NAWQA
from 1992 – 2001 (USGS 2006), carbaryl is listed as one of the 14 most
frequently detected pesticide compounds in surface water and one of the
3 most frequently detected insecticides.  Carbaryl was detected in 50%
of urban samples over this time period.  The majority of carbaryl
concentrations detected were low with 35% of the urban samples (and 70%
of the detections) less than 0.1 µg/L.  Detection frequencies in
agricultural and mixed land use streams were lower (10% and 17%,
respectively), and concentrations associated with those land uses were
almost all less than 0.1 µg/L.

ociated with agricultural uses (33.5 μg/L), is unusual but not outside
of the range predicted by modeling.

Pilot Reservoir Monitoring Study  tc \l3 "Pilot Reservoir Monitoring
Study

In the 2003 assessment, EFED summarized this study, which was conducted
by the USGS and EPA to gain better understanding of pesticide behavior
in reservoirs.  Twelve reservoirs were sampled across the country with
an emphasis on watersheds that were expected to be vulnerable to
pesticide contamination, but with no particular emphasis on any
particular pesticide.  Samples were collected at the drinking water
intake (312 total samples), the reservoir outflow (73 samples) and
finished water from the water supply (225 samples). Not all sites had
samples collected at the reservoir outflow. Carbaryl was detected at 5
sites , 4 at the intake, 2 at the outflow, and two in finished.  In
addition, 3 samples, all from intakes, contained 1-naphthol.  The
highest carbaryl concentration detected was 0.043 μg L-1 at Blue Marsh
Reservoir in Pennsylvania while the carbaryl degradate, 1-naphthol, was
found at 0.228 μg L-1 at Higginsville, Missouri. It is worth noting
that 1-naphthol has other sources in the environment, including some
which are natural. It is also worth noting that, as with the NAWQA data
which uses similar analytical protocols, all detections of carbaryl were
qualified due to high background variability of the measurements.  These
data are consistent with other data which show widespread low-level
contamination of carbaryl in surface water.

Registrant Drinking Water Monitoring Study tc \l3 "Registrant Drinking
Water Monitoring Study

In 2003, EFED reviewed the final report from a study voluntarily
conducted by Aventis for carbaryl (USEPA 2003b).  A summary of this
study was included in the 2003 EFED assessment.  The study was designed
with the purpose of providing the Agency data useful in refining the
drinking water exposure estimates for carbaryl.  The study provides data
useful for characterizing the overall exposure to carbaryl, but it
cannot be used to estimate exposure quantitatively due to drawbacks
which include the following:

The study provided insufficient supporting data on non-agricultural
sales and national-scale non-agricultural carbaryl usage to determine
the relative vulnerability of the systems  representing "home and
garden" usage effects.

The study design was insufficient to prove that sites sampled represent
the “the highest probable risk of human exposure to carbaryl in
surface water in each state”.

The monitoring interval (one week to two weeks) is unlikely to capture
peak concentrations necessary for estimating acute dietary risk, given
the variable nature of the exposure.

Concentrations measured at sites sampled were low (roughly 2 to 31 ppt)
in source drinking water (pre-treatment) and generally lower in treated
drinking water.  Interestingly, the highest concentrations were found in
finished drinking water not in source drinking water (181 ppt).

USGS-EPA Mini-pilot monitoring program

In September 2000, an Inter-governmental Steering Committee and two
workgroups were formed to advise and collaborate on further development
of regression models and other supporting activities.  The initial focus
of the Intergovernmental FQPA Drinking Water group was to design and
implement monitoring programs in support of the regression model
development efforts.  The purpose of the monitoring was to resolve
technical and logistical issues for development of a larger monitoring
program.

Phase I of the project sampled water-supply intakes for 5 community
water systems (CWS) that withdraw from free-flowing surface-water bodies
approximately 90 times over the course of a year with sampling occurring
most frequently during the primary pesticide application and pesticide
runoff periods.  The sites (in ND, GA, NC, OR, PA) were selected to
represent a variety of cropping regions and pesticide compounds in areas
dependent on precipitation-based agriculture.  Samples were shipped
overnight in iced coolers the USGS National Water-Quality Laboratory in
Denver Co. for analysis of residual pesticide concentrations.
Importantly, monitoring locations were not selected to represent use of
any specific pesticide, thus the significance of detection frequencies
and levels of detection cannot be broadly interpreted.  Low levels of
carbaryl have been found (no sample greater than 1 μg/L) at several of
these locations.

Surface Water Monitoring Program for Pesticides in Salmonid-Bearing
Streams tc \l3 "Registrant Drinking Water Monitoring Study  (Burke et
al., 2006)

The Washington State Department of Agriculture and the Washington State
Department of Ecology conducted a multi-year monitoring study to
characterize pesticide concentrations in selected salmonid-bearing
streams during the typical pesticide-use season.  Burke et al. (2006)
report results from the first three years of the study (2003-2005) in an
urban drainage represented by Thornton Creek in the Cedar-Sammamish
watershed, and in agricultural drainages represented by: Marion Drain,
Sulphur Creek Wasteway, and Spring Creek in the Lower Yakima watershed.
From 2003 through 2005, 453 samples were collected from urban and
agricultural sites. A total of 51 pesticides and degradate compounds
were detected in the urban and agricultural drainages and ten of these,
including carbaryl, were above assessment criteria cited in the report
(Table 4). Ninety-six percent of carbaryl detections were below these
criteria.

Table 4. Washington State Criteria for Carbaryl

subject	species	Acute LC50 (ppb)	NOEC

(ppb)

Fish	Rainbow Trout	1200	600

Fish	Chinook	2400	120

invertebrate	Daphnia magna	5.6	1.5

Thornton Creek drains a 12.1-square-mile watershed before flowing into
Lake Washington and ultimately Puget Sound. The watershed has 75,000 to
100,000 residents, thousands of daily commuters, and encompasses
single-family units, multi-family apartment complexes, schools, parks,
Interstate 5, a shopping mall, and a golf course (Thornton Creek
Watershed Characterization Report, 2000; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).
Impervious surfaces cover approximately 50% of the watershed.

The Lower Yakima watershed, an agricultural basin, is represented in
monitoring from the Marion Drain, Sulphur Creek Wasteway, and Spring
Creek encompassing a total area of 216,168 acres, 47% of which is
cropped.  The most common crops are grapes (18% of cropped area), apples
(14%), and wheat (13%).  Other crops include hops, mint, asparagus,
cherry, potatoes, pears, and nectarines.   The Yakima and Naches rivers
supply irrigation water to approximately 339,000 acres of cropland in
the Lower Yakima valley. Most of the water in the Yakima River system is
managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Water distribution from
canals to farms is primarily managed by irrigation districts.

μg/L.   Carbaryl was detected in samples collected in the agricultural
Lower Yakima watershed.  In 2003 carbaryl was detected in the Marion
drain at 0.14 ppb (in 1 of 18 samples); carbaryl was not detected in
2004 or 2005 at this location.  Carbaryl was detected in 2004 in the
Sulfur Creek Wasteway at 0.16 ppb (in 1 of 31 samples); carbaryl was not
detected in 2003 or 2005 at this location. On June 18, 2003, carbaryl
was detected at a concentration of 10 μg/L in the upper Spring Creek
station, and 1.7 μg/L at the mid-Spring Creek station.

This report also summarized “historical” data for these two areas,
collected largely by the USGS.  They observed that since monitoring of
Thornton Creek began in 1996, pesticides used have changed over the
years, including the phase out of diazinon in 2004.  They concluded that
carbaryl detection rates have risen slightly over the years, and that
the magnitude of detections has not approached endangered species or
invertebrate toxicological criteria used.  Reported detection
frequencies were substantially higher in the USGS studies (100% to 43%),
largely due to their more sensitive analytical methods. Peak
concentrations measured by the USGS in Thornton Creek were: 4.78 μg/L
(1999); 1.89 μg/L (2002); 0.212 μg/L (2003); 0.142 μg/L (2004).

Environmental Monitoring of Carbaryl Applied in Urban Areas to control
the Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter in California  tc \l3 "Registrant
Drinking Water Monitoring Study (Walters et al., 2003)

The Environmental Monitoring Branch of the Department of Pesticide
Regulation (DPR)

Conducted monitoring of carbaryl and other selected insecticides to
provide information on concentrations in various environmental media,
including surface water, resulting from ground applications to control
glassy-winged sharpshooter (Homalodisca coagulata) infestations in
California.  Carbaryl insecticide was applied to plants in urban areas
to control a serious insect pest, the glassy-winged sharpshooter, newly
introduced in California. To assure there were no adverse impacts to
human health and the environment from the carbaryl applications,
carbaryl was monitored in tank mixtures, air, surface water, foliage and
backyard fruits and vegetables.  DPR reported:

 “There were three detections of carbaryl in surface water near
application sites: 0.125 ppb (parts per billion) from a water treatment
basin; 6.94 ppb from a gold fish pond; and 1737 ppb in a rain runoff
sample collected from a drain adjacent to a sprayed site.”

DPR concluded that results from the five urban areas showed there were
no significant human exposures or impacts on the environment.

Trends in carbaryl concentrations in urban areas

OPP’s 2003 drinking water assessment relied upon monitoring data in
urban areas to characterize the impact of carbaryl use on water quality
in urban areas.  This section discusses trends that have been observed
in carbaryl concentrations in urban areas since the announcement of the
phase out of two other insecticides widely used in urban
areas—diazinon and chloryrifos.  There was speculation that with
diazinon and chlorpyrifos no longer available, homeowners would use more
carbaryl, and that carbaryl concentrations in streams in urban areas
would increase.  The residential use of liquid broadcast formulations of
carbaryl on turf was restricted in 2005 to areas less of than 1000 ft2.
Risk managers concluded that this restriction may help reduce potential
runoff of carbaryl in urban environments; however the labels for
granular formulations were not modified.  How the carbaryl label changes
impact the extent of the area treated and how that would affect carbaryl
concentrations in urban streams is unclear.

The timing of the phase out decisions is important in understanding
trends in pesticide concentrations in the environment.  On one hand, the
date of the announcement of a phase out initiates a multi-year process
stipulating a “stop sale” date and some additional time for
pesticide applicators to use products they have purchased.  On the other
hand, the market and pesticide applicators may react quickly to such an
announcement.  EPA announced the agreement to phase out and eliminate
all residential uses of the insecticide diazinon on December 5, 2000.
The terms of the four-year phase-out stipulated that technical
registrants reduce the amount of diazinon produced by 50% or more by
2003.  As of December 31, 2004, it was unlawful to sell diazinon
outdoor, non-agricultural products in the United States (the “stop
sale” date for all outdoor diazinon home, lawn, and garden products).
According to existing stocks provisions, it remained legal for consumers
to use products bearing labeling that allowed these uses after that
date.  On June 8, 2000, EPA announced an agreement with pesticide
registrants to phase out and cancel nearly all indoor and outdoor
residential uses of chlorpyrifos within 18 months, effectively
eliminating use by homeowners.  Residential uses were restricted
certified, professional, or agricultural applicators.  Those uses that
posed the most immediate risks to children (home lawn, indoor crack and
crevice treatments, uses in schools, parks) were canceled first, ending
as of 12/31/2001.   The last remaining residential use, products used
for pre-construction termite control, was cancelled as of December 31,
2005.

Based on the studies described below, the longer term impact of the
phase out on carbaryl concentrations in urban areas is not clear and may
vary by region due to differences in pest pressure and perhaps marketing
of different products.  Unlike the clear downward trend in
concentrations observed within a few years for the phased-out compounds
(diazinon and chlorpyrfos), the environmental outcome of this
registration decision may take longer to discern.  However, based on
these available data, there does not appear to be a steady upward trend
to carbaryl concentrations in urban areas following the phase-out of
diazinon and chlorpyrifos.

Quality of Stream water in the Puget Sound Basin—A Decade of Study and
Beyond (Embrey, S. and P. Moran, 2004)

 μg /L.  The figure below (from the poster) shows a decrease in
diazinon detections and concentrations following the announcement of the
phase out in 2000.  There is also an increase in carbaryl detection
frequency and concentrations in the years following the announcement of
the phase out of diazinon.  The data also appear to show that carbaryl
concentrations began to decline toward the end of the study period in
2005, rarely exceeding 0.1 μg /L.

Temporal Changes in Surface-water Insecticide Concentrations after the
phase out of diazinon and chlorpyrifos (Phillips et al., 2007)

A recently published paper by USGS scientists evaluated trends in
concentrations of carbaryl in the Northeast and Mid-West after the phase
out of diazinon and chlorpyrifos, insecticides in urban environments.
They compared concentrations of these pesticides in samples collected
from 20 streams by the USGS between 1992 and 2004 and determined that 16
of these streams met criteria established for assessing trends of
carbaryl in urban streams.  Sample collection and analysis followed
standard NAWQA procedures for collection and analysis. Using seasonal
step trend analysis they evaluated the data to identify trends in
summer, fall/winter, and winter/spring.  Results showed a decrease in
diazinon and chlorpyrifos concentrations following the announcement of
the phase out in 2000.  In contrast, trends were not observed in
carbaryl concentrations in these regions during the same time period.

Summary

This memo provided the results from carbaryl surface water modeling as
well as an updated review of monitoring data was reviewed to
characterize the potential for carbaryl to contaminate surface drinking
water.  The modeling effort was initiated different than in the previous
assessment due to the availability of new data and the need of HED to
have a more refined drinking water assessment. The update of the
monitoring data was necessary due to the time that has elapsed since the
previous assessment.

ð

T

›

¨

ª

«

ï

ð

ö

!

J

]

^

~

Œ

¢

°

¹

Ö

ò

û

摧ሠ

¹欀㥤

¹欀쩤

¹欀絤

瑹乕

瑹乕

瑹乕

瑹乕

瑹乕

瑹乕

瑹乕

瑹乕

瑹乕

瑹乕

瑹乕

瑹乕

瑹乕

瑹乕

h0l

㄀Ĥ摧禒Nࠀ 萎ː葝ː摧氰

萑ː葠ː摧栱/ጀries of concentrations as well as point estimates of
concentration were generated from PRZM/EXAMS models and were provided to
HED.  These estimates incorporated regional PCA’s and therefore it is
important to consider the spatial relevance of each of the simulations,
as was given in Table 1.  The point estimates indicated acute
concentrations that ranged from 13 to 108 ppb.   In addition point
estimates, complete time series were also provided (also with regional
PCA) to HED to use in refined assessments.

 Monitoring data reviewed for this update depict carbaryl as having
relatively high frequencies of detection.  This is consistent with the
2003 Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk assessment for carbaryl
which concluded that carbaryl is widely detected in non-targeted and
targeted monitoring studies.  Carbaryl is not very persistent in most
surface water conditions suggesting that the wide spread occurrence is a
result of its extensive use in a variety of applications.  Peak
concentrations from NAWQA data were as high as 33.5 μg/L in an
agricultural area .  In urban areas, detections are more frequent, and
the peak concentration was as high as 16.5 μg/L . For all areas,
detected concentrations were mostly low (less than 0.1 μg/L).  In
considering these data, it should be understood that nontargeted studies
such as NAWQA do not guarantee that  data are collected from areas of
the most benefit for exposure assessments such as those coinciding with
vulnerable application areas and times.  Additionally, these studies
typically do not include low-order streams or lentic (e.g. ponds and
wetlands) environments.

References

Burke, C., Anderson P, Dugger, D., Cowles, J., 2006, Surface Water
Monitoring Program for Pesticides in Salmonid-Bearing Streams,
2003-2005.  A Cooperative Study by the Washington State Departments of
Ecology and Agriculture,   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0603036.pdf"
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0603036.pdf

D288376. Jones. R. David. 2003. Review of “Estimation of the Foliar
Dissipation Half-life of Carbaryl” and Re-analysis of the Foliar
Degradation Rate. EPA Internal Memorandum to Tony Britten.

EFED 2002. Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM) Field and Orchard Crop
Scenarios: Standard Procedures for Conducting Quality Control and
Quality Assurance, Environmental Fate and Effects Division/OPP/OPPTS, US
EPA.

Embrey, S. and P. Moran, 2006, Quality of Stream water in the Puget
Sound Basin—A Decade of Study and Beyond,
wa.water.usgs.gov/projects/pugt/data/4-2006-poster.pdf

Ferreira, G.A. and J.N. Seiber, 1981. J. Agric. Food Chem., 29:93-99

Mason, Y, E. Chosen, and C. Rav-Acha. 1990.  Carbamate Insecticides
Removal from Water by Chlorination and Ozonation. Water Res. 24(1):11-21

Suntio, L.R., et al., 1988. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 103:1-59

Shevchenko, M. A., P. N. Taran, and P. V. Marchenko., 1982. Modern
methods for purifying water from pesticides. Soviet Journal of Water
Chemistry and Technology. 4(4):53-71

Walters, J., Goh, K.S., Feng, H., Hernandez, J., and J. White, 2003,
Environmental Monitoring of Carbaryl Applied in Urban Areas to control
the Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,
Vol. 82, No. 3, March 2003, pp. 265-280 (16)

Whittaker, K. F., J. C. Nye, R. F. Wukasch, R. J. Squires, A. C. York,
H. A. Kazimier. 1982. Collection and treatment of wastewater generated
by pesticide application. EPA Report No. 600/2-82-028

USGS 2006, Pesticides in the Nation’s Streams and Ground Water, 1992
– 2001, Circular 1291

USEPA, 2003a, Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk assessment for the
Re-Registration of Carbaryl , D285826, 3/31/2003

USEPA, 2003b, Final Report of Carbaryl EEC’s for Drinking Water,
additional simulations, D288455, 6/30/2003

h0l

h0l

h0l

h0l

h0l

h0l

h0l

h0l

h0l

h0l

h0l

h0l

h0l

h0l

h0l

h0l

h0l

㄀Ĥ摧氰

摧氰

Response to Phase 6 Comments on the Interim Reregistration Eligibility
Decision (IRED) Document for Carbaryl, D295072, 12/30/2005

 PAGE  7


PSD Increment Modeling Consultation

Salt Lake City, Utah

2/22/08

Consultation with Forest County Potawatomi Community

Background

On June 6, 2007 EPA proposed the PSD Refinements to Increment Modeling
Procedures rule.  This rule clarifies issues surrounding increment
calculations and modeling that have been inconsistently applied by
States.  The comment period for the rule closed on August 29, 2007, but
was reopened and extended to September 28, 2007.  At that time, EPA
failed to adequately consult with the tribes on this rule.  To address
this problem, we sent letters to tribal leaders (inviting them to
consult with us on this proposal), held a series of conference calls
with interested tribal environmental staff, and followed with one day of
training on PSD and this rule.  The following are notes from
Consultation with three tribes on the rule.

In agreement with 2 of the 3 consulting tribes, other tribes were
allowed to listen to the consultation to help better inform them for
developing their own comments on the rule.  EPA requested written
comments be submitted to the Agency by August 4, 2008.

Attendees

Al Milham – Forest County Potawatomi, Vice Chair

Natalene Cummings – Forest County Potawatomi, Air Specialist

Art Harrington – Forest County Potawatomi, Lawyer for the Tribe

John Clancy – Forest County Potawatomi, Lawyer for the Tribe

Duncan Moss – Forest County Potawatomi, Lawyer for the Tribe

Alexis North – EPA

Bill Harnett – EPA

Janet McDonald – EPA

Jessica Montanez – EPA

Laura McKelvey – EPA

Kevin Greenleaf – Kootenai Tribe of Idaho

Joy Wiecks – Fond Du Lac Band

Mary Munn – Fond Du Lac Band

Brandy Toft – Leech Lake Band of the Ojibwe

Lisa Riener – Quinault Indian Nation

Chris Lee – Southern Ute Tribe

Randy Ashley – Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes

Michel Kenmille – Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes

Deb Madison – Fort Peck

Summary

At the outset of the consultation session, Art Harrington wanted to make
a statement for the record that the fact that Forest County Potawatomi
Community (“FCPC”) was participating in this consultation should not
be viewed as a waiver of FCPC’s legal position that such consultation
should have occurred before EPA published this rule proposal.

Art also commenced his remarks by expressing appreciation and
compliments for the training the day before.  He also expressed
appreciation for the ability to have sovereign government to sovereign
government dialogue and that the Agency is taking seriously its trust
responsibility to the tribes, particularly on issues of this importance.
 He recognized concerns about urban sprawl, other growth demands, and
the resulting continued growth in the energy demand, and thus he
appreciates and understands the significant factors that the Agency
needs to balance with the interests of the tribes in this complex
rule-making proceeding.  As we look forward, Art mentioned that we need
to predict what will happen 20 years from now, and thus the Agency will
need to periodically revisit the current approach.

FCPC did not want to repeat the Consultation conversation that
previously occurred with Fond du Lac, but they mentioned that they will
include some of that discussion in their written comments.  Beyond that
there were other areas that Art wanted to touch on in his discussion:

Legal issues related to the variance procedures

Clarification regarding  the elements of the proposal that are changes
in policy versus changes in rule and when these changes take effect

The use of Significant Impact Levels (SILs) in the preliminary analysis

Practical issues for tribes regarding their participation in permit
review for Tribal Class I areas during the 30-day public comment period

Legal issues related to the variance procedures

The variance issue is very important in Class I areas.  One of the key
issues raised is who the FLM is for the Tribal Class I areas.  The
Agency says we want the tribes to be the land managers in their tribal
Class I areas, and FCPC agrees with this position.  However, FCPC raised
the question that even if the tribe is the FLM and a source is not
granted a variance, will that decision be subject to litigation?

In addition, it is unclear if the variance is only for federally owned
Class I areas or if it also includes the Tribal Class I areas.  Because
the variance procedures are under section 165(d) of the Act, Art reads
this section as applying to the Federal areas only.  Tribal Class I
areas are included in section 164(e) where different procedures are
discussed.  In fact, in a 1996 FR notice EPA discusses the differences.
Thus, Art mentioned that Bill Harnett, EPA/Office or Air Quality
Planning and Standards/Air Quality Policy Division Director, said in the
past that the tribe, or EPA as its surrogate, will act as the FLM, but
it is unclear if the tribes under section 165(d) have the authority to
act in this capacity because it has not come up in the past.  Art
mentioned that there could be an argument that since no tribes had Class
I areas before the language existed, the language could be read as the
“person who controls the Class I areas.”  However, this is new
ground and has not been tested.  The language of section 165(d) could
also be read that variances cannot be granted for Tribal Class I areas.

Bill Harnett agreed this is new ground that has not been tested and that
we need to think about both: whether or not the recommendation is that
the tribes do not have the authority to act as the FLM or that variances
cannot be issued because it might act against the tribe.  For instance,
if the state wants to issue a permit that is beyond the increment and it
impacts the AQRV for a Tribal Class I area could that argument keep the
tribe from preventing the permit from being issued?  This section
creates the authority for both.  We also need to think if the tribes
might lose something by “walling themselves off” from this section.

Clarification regarding the elements of the proposal that are changes in
policy versus changes in rule and when these changes take effect

Art thinks that the purpose of the proposal is to provide clarifying
guidance and discretion for past practices and that these
guidance/policy statements went forward after the proposal was final and
that changes in rule language will not take effect until the rule is
final.

Bill responded that he is not aware of any of the new guidance or policy
statements addressed in the rule currently being implemented by the
States and that any rule changes will not be in effect until the rule
goes final.

For example, in the case of the PSD program, we drafted a training
manual in 1990, commonly known as the NSR Workshop Manual, but never
finalized it because of differing opinions on how to deal with the
issues addressed in the manual.  However, since this was the only
document of this kind published by the Agency, it was used and
implemented as final Agency policy by our stakeholders despite the fact
that no formal guidance, for example, on increment modeling was ever
made.  As a result, inconsistent approaches to increment consumption
have resulted.  Nevertheless, there is now new federal policy that
requires significant policy and guidance changes to go through notice
and comment just like a rule would.

Art said he was still unclear about what parts of the proposal are
policies and what are regulatory.

Bill felt that everything in the proposal was a change in policy but not
a change in rule.  However, we will have to resolve this and may have to
make regulatory changes.

Art continued to mention that in order to provide adequate comments he
would like to know how the tribe determines what a change in policy is.

Thus, Bill added that he felt the entire proposal is a clarification.

Janet McDonald, EPA/Office of Air and Radiation, added that if any
disputes arise in the future, the courts will see that this document
went through notice and comment and will give it more weight than old
policy that did not go through notice and comment.

Art continued to express his concern that if all the rule language is a
change in policy not a change in rule, this impacted the ability of the
tribes to have meaningful consultation.

Bill answered that this is not the case because we are still allowing as
much discretion as before.  For that reason, to the extent that the
practices were used before then, they are already taking place.  However
these practices are not widespread.

The use of Significant Impact Levels (SILs) in the preliminary analysis

Art asked for clarification on the SILs, which are used to decide if a
source has to conduct a cumulative impact analysis and not just a
preliminary increment analysis.

Bill said the SILs have been proposed but not finalized.  Many of the
FLMs have accepted them, but in some parks were there is more pollution
impacts the FLMs are not accepting them.  In these cases, the sources
must do the more complex cumulative impact analysis.

Art mentioned that they felt they needed to reflect and comment on how
the SILs work and if they were stringent enough.

Bill noted that if the tribe or EPA objected to the SILs, the tribe
could force the source to do the more complex cumulative impact
analysis.

Practical issues for tribes regarding their participation on permit
review for Tribal Class I areas during the 30-day public comment period

Art stated this raises a practical issue of the ability of the tribe to
review and comment on all of the information in the 30-day public
comment period.  Thus he asks: How can the tribes be engaged earlier
given the staffing constraints, complexity, and the use of best
professional judgment by the sources and permit authorities being
proposed?

Bill responded that from his perspective there should be an agreement
between the tribes and the Regional Offices on how to get the tribes
involved early in the permitting process for any source impacting tribal
lands.  The Regional Offices should also help the tribes understand the
issues if needed.  The Regions have the expertise and knowledge, and can
help facilitate the interaction with their respective State(s).

Art suggested that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has a
cooperative agency status where the pattern can be borrowed for this
purpose.

Bill said he would like to see a continued discussion with the Regions
and tribal experts on how we can address this issue.

Art made a final observation that he appreciated the consultation and
the level of interaction on this proposal.  However, where disputes with
Class I areas occur down the road, the Agency needs to be clear and
resolve to be protective of the Tribal Class I areas for the future.

John Clancy also pointed out that this proposal provides more
flexibility for the permitting authorities and there is a general
concern that the permitting authorities could be more closely aligned
with the sources rather than the tribes.

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  4


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 45 (Thursday, March 9, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13077-13079]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04523]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9592; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-30-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) CFM56-3, -3B, and -3C turbofan
engines. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of dual-engine loss
of thrust control that resulted in an air turn back. This proposed AD
would require initial and repetitive checks of the variable stator vane
(VSV) actuation system in the high-pressure compressor (HPC). We are
proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 24, 2017.

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 NPRM, 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 FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District
Avenue, 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-2016-
9592; 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: David Bethka, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200
District Avenue, 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 proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-9592;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-30-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 received a report of a dual-engine loss of thrust control that
resulted in an air turn back. Investigation determined that loss of
thrust control was the result of restricted movement of the VSV
actuation rings in the HPC stator case. This restricted movement
resulted from resistance caused by corrosion in the VSV bores. This
condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the VSV
actuators, loss of engine thrust control, and reduced control of the
airplane.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed CFM Service Bulletin (SB) CFM56-3 S/B 72-1169, Revision
01, dated April 25, 2016. This SB describes procedures for examining
the VSV bores on the inside of the HPC case. We also reviewed CFM
CFM56-3 Engine Shop Manual (ESM) 72-32-01, Repair 031, dated February
8, 2016. This repair provides guidance on reaming and applying anti-
corrosion paint to the VSV bores.

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 checks of
stage 1, stage 2, and stage 3 of the HPC VSV actuation system.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    CFM SB CFM56-3 S/B 72-1169, Revision 01, dated April 25, 2016, only
recommends inspection of CFM56-3 engines if 50% or more of their
operation occurs in tropical rainforest climate zones and the
utilization rate is less than 150 hours per month. We find that
corrosion could occur in other climate zones, and would be a function
of hours as well as utilization. We also find it is not practical to
base AD requirements on geography and, to a lesser extent, utilization.
Therefore, we are proposing that this AD be applicable to all CFM56-3
engines not previously repaired as described in CFM CFM56-3 ESM 72-32-
01, Repair 031, dated February 8, 2016. In addition, CFM SB CFM56-3 S/B
72-1169 requires that repair be performed within 5 flight cycles if the
pull force is measured to be greater than 100 lbs. Given that pull
force greater than 100 lbs may result in loss of thrust control, we are
proposing in this AD that repair be done prior to further flight.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 460 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
              Action                        Labor cost            Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection of the HPC VSV           2 work-hours x $85 per                 $0             $170          $78,200
 actuation system.                   hour = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-2016-9592; Directorate
Identifier 2016-NE-30-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 24, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to CFM International S.A. (CFM) CFM56-3, -3B,
and -3C turbofan engines.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine
Compressor Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of dual engine loss of thrust
control that resulted in an air turn back. We are issuing this AD to
prevent failure of the variable stator vane (VSV) actuators, loss of
engine thrust control, and reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done. Within 12 months after the effective date of
this AD:
    (1) Inspect the affected engines to determine if the compressor
front stator case is marked with ``RP031'' adjacent to the part
number. If the case is marked with ``RP031,'' no further action
required. If the case is not marked with ``RP031,'' follow the
remaining steps in paragraph (f) of this AD.
    (2) Perform an initial pull force check of stage 1, stage 2, and
stage 3 of the compressor VSV actuation system.
    (i) If any stage requires more than 100 lbs force to move the
actuation ring, ream the VSV bores and apply anti-corrosion coating
to stage 1, 2, and 3, prior to further flight.
    (ii) If any stage requires more than 75 lbs and less than or
equal to 100 lbs force to move the actuation ring, repeat the
inspection within 3 months since last inspection.
    (iii) If all stages require 75 lbs force or less to move the
actuation rings, repeat the inspection within 12 months since last
inspection.
    (3) Thereafter, continue to perform repetitive pull force checks
of stage 1, 2, and 3 of the compressor VSV actuation system and
disposition as specified in paragraphs (2)(i) through (2)(iii) of
this AD.

(g) Optional Terminating Action

    Reaming the VSV bores and applying anti-corrosion coating, as
specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD, is terminating action
to the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (f)(3) of this
AD.

(h) 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>
(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact David Bethka,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) CFM Service Bulletin CFM56-3 S/B 72-1169, Revision 01, dated
April 25, 2016, and CFM CFM56-3 Engine Shop Manual 72-32-01, Repair
031, dated February 8, 2016, can be obtained from CFM using the
contact information in paragraph (i)(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, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
781-238-7125.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 28, 2017.
Carlos A. Pestana,
Acting Assistant Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-04523 Filed 3-8-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 127 (Friday, July 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43037-43038]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15351]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-4551; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-07-AD;
Amendment 39-18576; AD 2016-13-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) BR700-710A1-10, -710A2-20,
and -710C4-11 turbofan engines. This AD requires removing the pawl
carrier pivot pins, part number (P/N) BRR17117, from service and
replacing them with parts eligible for installation. This AD was
prompted by a seized low-pressure turbine (LPT) fuel shut-off pawl
carrier caused by corrosion of the pawl carrier pivot pin. We are
issuing this AD to prevent failure of the fuel shut-off mechanism,
which could result in uncontained part release, damage to the engine,
and damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective August 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11, Dahlewitz,
15827 Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; phone: +49 (0) 33 7086 2673; fax:
+49 (0) 33 7086 3276. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
781-238-7125. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
4551.

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-2016-
4551; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Haberlen, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 781-
238-7199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The
NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 1, 2016 (81 FR
18806). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Seizing of a fuel shut-off mechanism pawl carrier was reported.
The subsequent investigation determined that corrosion of the pawl
carrier pivot pin P/N BRR17117, was the failure cause.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to loss of the fuel
shut-off mechanism functionality and loss of the engine over-speed
protection, possibly resulting in release of high-energy debris,
with consequent damage to, and/or reduced control of 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-2016-4551.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (81 FR 18806, April 1,
2016).

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed.

Related Service Information

    RRD has issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) BR700-72-A101523,
Revision 3, dated December 10, 2015. The service information describes
procedures for replacing the pawl carrier pivot pins. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 4 engines installed on airplanes
of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 3 hours per
engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour.
Required parts cost about $860 per engine. Based on these figures, we
estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $4,460.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska 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.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2016-13-12 Rolls-Royce Deutschland GmbH (Type Certificate previously
held by Rolls-Royce Deutschland GmbH, formerly BMW Rolls-Royce
GmbH): Amendment 39-18576; Docket No. FAA-2016-4551; Directorate
Identifier 2016-NE-07-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective August 5, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to:
    (i) Rolls-Royce Deutschland (RRD) BR700-710A1-10 engines with
serial number (S/N) 11505 and below and with a low-pressure turbine
(LPT) module, part number (P/N) M51-104 or P/N M51-111, installed;
    (ii) RRD BR700-710A2-20 engines with S/N 12492 and below and
with an LPT module, P/N M51-108 or P/N M51-111, installed;
    (iii) RRD BR700-710C4-11 engines with S/N 15277 and below, with
configuration standard 710C4-11 engraved on the engine data plate
and with an LPT module, P/N M51-112, installed; and
    (iv) RRD BR700-710C4-11 engines with S/N 15329 and below, with
configuration standard 710C4-11/10 engraved on the engine data plate
and with an LPT module, P/N M51-112, installed.
    (2) Reserved.

(d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a seized LPT fuel shut-off pawl carrier
caused by corrosion of the pawl carrier pivot pin. We are issuing
this AD to prevent failure of the fuel shut-off mechanism, which
could result in uncontained part release, damage to the engine, 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, remove
each pawl carrier pivot pin, P/N BRR17117, from service and replace
with a part eligible for installation.
    (2) Reserved.

(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 Philip Haberlen,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2016-0034,
dated February 24, 2016, 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-2016-4551.
    (3) RRD Alert Service Bulletin BR700-72-A101523, Revision 3,
dated December 10, 2015, can be obtained from RRD using the contact
information in paragraph (g)(4) of this AD.
    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11, Dahlewitz, 15827
Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; phone: +49 (0) 33 7086 2673; fax: +49
(0) 33 7086 3276.
    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
781-238-7125.

(h) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 23, 2016.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate,Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-15351 Filed 6-30-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P