[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 97 (Friday, May 21, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27535-27537]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10721]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 97 / Friday, May 21, 2021 / Proposed
Rules

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0374; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00543-R]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Airbus Helicopters Model SA330J, AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1,
AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by a
report of a left-hand (LH) side stairway door that inadvertently opened
in flight and tore off from its attachment fittings. This proposed AD
would require inspecting the locking safety mechanism of the LH side
stairway door handle and depending on the results, corrective action.
This proposed AD would also require modifying that locking safety
mechanism as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference (IBR). The
FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 6,
2021.

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 https://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 material that is proposed for IBR in this AD, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999
000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may
find this material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD docket on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2021-0374.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0374; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hal Jensen, Aerospace Engineer,
Operational Safety Branch, FAA, 950 L'Enfant Plaza N SW, Washington, DC
20024; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0374; Project Identifier
MCAI-2020-00543-R'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposal.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Hal
Jensen, Aerospace Engineer, Operational Safety Branch, FAA, 950
L'Enfant Plaza N SW, Washington, DC 20024; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives that is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0087, dated April 15, 2020
(EASA AD 2020-0087), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus
Helicopters (AH), formerly Eurocopter, Eurocopter France, Aerospatiale,
Sud Aviation Model SA330J, AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and
EC225LP helicopters, if equipped with a LH side stairway door, except
helicopters modified in accordance with AH modification (MOD) 07 28281
(AS 332, EC 225) or MOD 07 27338 (SA 330). EASA issued EASA AD 2020-
0087 to supersede EASA Emergency AD 2014-0241-E,

dated November 4, 2014 (EASA AD 2014-0241-E).
    This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a LH side stairway
door that inadvertently opened and tore off from its attachment
fittings during flight. Subsequent investigation revealed that the
affected side stairway door had been recently painted and the paint
impaired the external door handle motion, affecting the correct
operation of the door locking safety mechanism. The FAA is proposing
this AD to address incorrect locking of the LH side stairway door,
which could result in an in-flight opening of the door and subsequent
damage to the helicopter or injury to persons on the ground. See EASA
AD 2020-0087 for additional background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0087 requires repetitively inspecting the locking
safety mechanism of the LH side stairway door handle for correct
operation and depending on the results, reconditioning the locking
safety mechanism or contacting the Airbus Helicopters Support and
Services Department. EASA AD 2020-0087 also requires modifying the
locking safety mechanism, which constitutes terminating action for the
repetitive inspections.
    This material 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.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country, and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the EASA
AD referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all
the relevant information and determining the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these
same type designs.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2020-0087, described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this proposed AD and except as discussed under
``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the EASA AD.''

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2020-0087
will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed
AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2020-0087 in its
entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular
section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only
with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to
``all required actions and compliance times,'' compliance with this AD
requirement is not limited to the section titled ``Required Action(s)
and Compliance Time(s)'' in the EASA AD. Service information specified
in EASA AD 2020-0087 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-
0087 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0374 after the FAA
final rule is published.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    Where EASA AD 2020-0087 refers to the effective date of EASA AD
2014-0214-E or its effective date, this proposed AD would require using
the effective date of this AD. Where EASA AD 2020-0087 refers to Group
1 and 2 helicopters, this proposed AD would not refer to any groups of
helicopters. Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-
0087 allows the pilot to perform the requirements of the ASB, this
proposed AD would require the requirements to be performed by a
qualified mechanic. Where the service information referenced in EASA AD
2020-0087 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer,
this AD does not include that requirement. Where the service
information referenced in EASA AD 2020-0087 specifies to discard
certain parts, this proposed AD would require removing those parts from
service instead. EASA AD 2020-0087 requires repeating the inspection
before next flight after each application of painting on the LH side
stairway door or its external door handle, whereas this proposed AD
would not. EASA AD 2020-0087 requires contacting the Airbus Helicopters
Support and Services Department if it is impossible to recondition the
locking safety mechanism by moving the door handle, whereas this
proposed AD would require, before further flight, accomplishing
paragraph (5) of EASA AD 2020-0087 or accomplishing corrective action
using a method approved by the Manager, International Validation
Branch, FAA. The Manager's approval letter must specifically refer to
this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 37 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on
these numbers, the FAA estimates that operators may incur the following
costs in order to comply with this proposed AD.
    Inspecting the operation of the locking safety mechanism on the LH
side stairway door handle would take about 0.1 work-hour for an
estimated cost of $9 per helicopter and $333 for the U.S. fleet.
    Moving the external door handle from the ``Locked'' to the
``Unlocked'' position to determine if the safety mechanism on the LH
side stairway door handle can lock automatically would take about 0.5
work-hour for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter.
    Modifying the locking safety mechanism on the LH side stairway door
handle would take about 8 work-hours and parts would cost about $5,000
for an estimated cost of $5,680 per helicopter.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely
to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA 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) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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:

Airbus Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2021-0374; Project Identifier
MCAI-2020-00543-R.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by July 6, 2021.

(b) Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model SA330J, AS332C,
AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters, certificated in
any category, as identified in the Applicability of European Union
Aviation Safety Agency AD 2020-0087, dated April 15, 2020 (EASA AD
2020-0087).

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code: 5210, Passenger/
Crew Doors.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a left-hand (LH) side
stairway door that inadvertently opened and tore off from its
attachment fittings during flight. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address incorrect locking of the LH side stairway door, which could
result in an in-flight opening of the door and subsequent damage to
the helicopter or injury to persons on the ground.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2020-0087.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0087

    (1) Where EASA AD 2020-0087 refers to November 6, 2014 (the
effective date of EASA AD 2014-0241-E, dated November 4, 2014) or
its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of
this AD.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2020-0087 refers to Group 1 and Group 2
helicopters, this AD does not refer to any groups of helicopters.
    (3) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-
0087 permits certain actions to be performed by a mechanical
engineering technician or pilot, this AD requires that the actions
be performed by a qualified mechanic.
    (4) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-
0087 specifies to discard certain parts, this AD requires removing
those parts from service.
    (5) While paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2020-0087 requires actions
before next flight after each application of painting on the LH side
stairway door or its external door handle, those actions are not
required by this AD.
    (6) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0087 requires
reconditioning the locking safety mechanism, and the service
information referenced in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0087
specifies contacting the Airbus Helicopters Support and Services
Department if it is impossible to recondition the locking safety
mechanism by moving the door handle, this AD requires moving the
external door handle from the ``Locked'' to the ``Unlocked''
position to determine if the safety mechanism can lock
automatically. If the safety mechanism does not lock automatically,
this AD requires, before further flight accomplishing paragraph (5)
of EASA AD 2020-0087 or accomplishing corrective action using a
method approved by the Manager, International Validation Branch,
FAA. The Manager's approval letter must specifically refer to this
AD.
    (7) Where paragraph (5) of EASA AD 2020-0087 identifies the
modification as required by paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2020-0087 as
terminating action for the repetitive inspections as required by
paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2020-0087 for that helicopter, this AD does
not allow the modification to terminate the repetitive inspections
as required by paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2020-0087.
    (8) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0087 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-0087
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Hal Jensen,
Aerospace Engineer, Operational Safety Branch, FAA, 950 L'Enfant
Plaza N SW, Washington, DC 20024; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For EASA AD 2020-0087, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-
Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may
view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0374.

    Issued on May 15, 2021.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-10721 Filed 5-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 184 (Friday, September 23, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58047-58049]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20441]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 174 and 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0161; FRL-9410-05-OCSPP]

Receipt of Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals in or on Various Commodities (August 2022)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notices of filing of petitions and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of initial
filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 24, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0161, through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Additional
instructions on commenting and visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Smith, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511M), main telephone number:
(202) 566-1400, email address: [email protected]; or Marietta
Echeverria, Registration Division (RD) (7505P), main telephone number:
(703) 305-7090, email address: [email protected]. The mailing address
for each contact person is Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's
name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the
end of each application summary.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is announcing receipt of pesticide petitions filed under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 174 or 180 for residues of pesticide
chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking
public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners.
EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has
determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document
contain data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency
of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports
granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public
comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be
warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final
determination on these pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), summaries of the petitions that are
the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioners, are included
in dockets EPA has created for these rulemakings. The dockets for these
petitions are available at https://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA
is publishing notice of the petitions so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on these requests for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petitions may be obtained
through the petition summaries referenced in this unit.

A. Notice of Filing--New Tolerance Exemptions for Inerts (Except PIPS)

    1. PP IN-11673. EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0737. RRStewart Consulting, LLC, on
behalf of Aicello America Corporation, 182 Nassau Street, Princeton, NJ
08542, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of diglycerol (CAS No. 59113-36-9) as a
plasticizer inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied pre- and
post-harvest to crops under 40 CFR 180.910. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.
    2. PP IN-11712. EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0711. Delta Analytical Corporation,
on behalf of Borchers Americas, Inc., 811 Sharon Drive, Westlake, OH
44145, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for [alpha]-D-Glucopyranoside, [beta]-D-fructofuranosyl,
polymer with methyloxirane and oxirane with a minimum number average
molecular weight (in amu) of 9,820 (CAS Reg. No. 26301-10-0), when used
as a pesticide inert ingredient (wetting agent) in pesticide
formulations under 40 CFR 180.960. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.

B. New Tolerance Exemptions for Inerts (Except PIPS)

    PP IN-11712. EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0711. Delta Analytical Corporation, on
behalf of Borchers Americas, Inc., 811 Sharon Drive, Westlake, OH
44145, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for [alpha]-D-Glucopyranoside, [beta]-D-fructofuranosyl,
polymer with methyloxirane and oxirane with a minimum number average
molecular weight (in amu) of 9,820 (CAS Reg. No. 26301-10-0), when used
as a pesticide inert ingredient (wetting agent) in pesticide
formulations under 40 CFR 180.960. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.

C. New Tolerance Exemptions for Non-Inerts (Except PIPS)

    1. PP 1F8959. EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0716. Crop Enhancement, 2186 Bering
Drive, San Jose, California 95131, requests to establish an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of
the insecticide/miticide linseed oil in or on all raw agricultural
commodities. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed
because an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is being
proposed. Contact: BPPD.
    2. PP 2F9018. EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0743. Columbia River Carbonates, 300
North Pekin Road, Woodland, Washington 98674, requests to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the biochemical active ingredient calcium carbonate in or
on all agricultural food commodities. The analytical method Inductively
Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectrometer (ICP-OES) analysis of test
item and reference standard is available to EPA for the detection and
measurement of the pesticide residues. Contact: BPPD.

D. New Tolerances for Non-Inerts

    1. PP 2E9008. EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0576. BASF Corporation, Agricultural
Products, P.O. Box 13528, 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC
27709, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the herbicide, imazapic in or on rice, grain at 0.05 parts
per million (ppm) and in or on rice, bran at 0.2 ppm. The Liquid
Chromatography-Mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is used to measure and
evaluate the chemical imazapic. Contact: RD.
    2. PP 2E9009. EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0577. BASF Corporation, Agricultural
Products, P.O. Box 13528, 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC
27709, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the herbicide imazapyr in or on rice, grain at 0.06 ppm and
in or on rice, bran at 0.2 ppm. The LC-MS/MS is used to

measure and evaluate the chemical imazapyr. Contact: RD.
    3. PP 2E9011. EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0672. American Spice Trade
Association, 1101 17th Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036,
requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of
the pesticide, cypermethrin, in or on raw agricultural spice
commodities: Allspice; anise pepper; ashwagandha fruit; batavia-cassia,
fruit; belleric myrobalan; caper buds; cardamom, black; cardamom,
ethopian; cardamom, green; cardamom, nepal; cardamom-amomum; cassia,
fruit; cassia, chinese, fruit; chinese hawthorn; chinese-pepper;
cinnamon, fruit; cinnamon, saigon, fruit; coriander, fruit; cumin,
black; dorrigo pepper, berry; dorrigo pepper, leaf; eucalyptus;
gamboge; grains of selim; juniper, berry; miracle fruit; pepper, black;
pepper, indian long; pepper, javanese long; pepper, pink; pepper,
sichuan; pepper, white; pepperbush, berry; pepperbush, leaf;
peppercorn, green; peppertree; peppertree, peruvian; saunders, red;
sumac, fragrant; sumac, smooth, leaf; tamarind, seed; tasmanian,
pepper, berry; tsaoko; vanilla, at 0.5 ppm; and angelica, seed;
asafoetida; calamus-root; chaste tree, chinese, roots; coptis;
coriander, seed; fingerroot; jalap; lovage, root; lovage, seed; yellow
gentian, roots at 0.2 ppm. The gas chromatography with electron capture
detection (GC/ECD) analytical method is used to measure and evaluate
the chemical cypermethrin. Contact: RD.

E. New Tolerances for Non-Inerts

    1. PP 2E9006. EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0645. Interregional Research Project
Number 4 (IR-4), IR-4 Project Headquarters, North Carolina State
University, 1730 Varsity Drive, Venture IV, Suite 210, Raleigh, NC
27606, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.532 for residues
of the fungicide, cyprodinil 4-cyclopropyl-6-methyl-N-phenyl-2-
pyrimidinamine in or on cranberry at 0.4 ppm. Analytical method AG-631B
was used to measure and evaluate the chemical. Contact: RD.
    2. PP 2E9008. EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0576. BASF Corporation, Agricultural
Products, P.O. Box 13528, 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC
27709, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the herbicide, imazapic in or on rice, grain at 0.05 ppm
and in or on rice, bran at 0.2 ppm. The LC-MS/MS is used to measure and
evaluate the chemical imazapic. Contact: RD.
    3. PP 2E9009. EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0577. BASF Corporation, Agricultural
Products, P.O. Box 13528, 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC
27709, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the herbicide imazapyr in or on rice, grain at 0.06 ppm and
in or on rice, bran at 0.2 ppm. The LC-MS/MS is used to measure and
evaluate the chemical imazapyr. Contact: RD.
    4. PP 2E9011. EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0672. American Spice Trade
Association, 1101 17th Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036,
requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of
the pesticide, cypermethrin, in or on raw agricultural spice
commodities: Allspice; anise pepper; ashwagandha fruit; batavia-cassia,
fruit; belleric myrobalan; caper buds; cardamom, black; cardamom,
ethopian; cardamom, green; cardamom, nepal; cardamom-amomum; cassia,
fruit; cassia, chinese, fruit; chinese hawthorn; chinese-pepper;
cinnamon, fruit; cinnamon, saigon, fruit; coriander, fruit; cumin,
black; dorrigo pepper, berry; dorrigo pepper, leaf; eucalyptus;
gamboge; grains of selim; juniper, berry; miracle fruit; pepper, black;
pepper, indian long; pepper, javanese long; pepper, pink; pepper,
sichuan; pepper, white; pepperbush, berry; pepperbush, leaf;
peppercorn, green; peppertree; peppertree, peruvian; saunders, red;
sumac, fragrant; sumac, smooth, leaf; tamarind, seed; tasmanian,
pepper, berry; tsaoko; vanilla, at 0.5 ppm; and angelica, seed;
asafoetida; calamus-root; chaste tree, chinese, roots; coptis;
coriander, seed; fingerroot; jalap; lovage, root; lovage, seed; yellow
gentian, roots at 0.2 ppm. The GC/ECD analytical method is used to
measure and evaluate the chemical cypermethrin. Contact: RD.

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: September 16, 2022.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Program Support.
[FR Doc. 2022-20441 Filed 9-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 154)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40503-40509]
[DOCID:fr12au09-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0041; FRL-8430-5]

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate; Exemption From the Requirement of a
Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of sodium lauryl sulfate (CAS Reg. No. 151-
21-3) when used as a component of food contact sanitizing solutions
applied to all food contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-
processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils at a
maximum level in the end-use concentration of 350 parts per million
(ppm). ETI H2O submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the
requirement of a

tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum
permissible level for residues of sodium lauryl sulfate.

DATES: This regulation is effective August 12, 2009. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before October 13, 2009,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0041. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerry Leifer, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing electronically available documents at
http://www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access
a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the
Government Printing Office's e-CFR cite at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/
ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which
govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in
40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on
this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0041 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before October 13, 2009.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0041, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background

    In the Federal Register of February 6, 2008 (73 FR 6964) (FRL-8350-
9), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 (d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 7F7179)
by ETI H2O, 1725 Gillespie Way, El Cajon, CA 92020. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.940(a) be amended by establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of sodium
lauryl sulfate (CAS Reg. No. 151-21-3) as a component of food contact
sanitizing solutions applied to all food contact surfaces in public
eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing
equipment and utensils which increases the maximum level in the end-use
concentration from 3 ppm to 350 ppm. That notice included a summary of
the petition prepared by the petitioner. There were no comments
received in response to the notice of filing.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene ploymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue. . . .''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of sodium
lauryl sulfate when used as a component of food contact sanitizing
solutions applied to all food contact surfaces in public eating places,
dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils
at a maximum level in the end-use concentration of 350 ppm. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing
tolerances follows.

 A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    The toxicology database is adequate to support the use of sodium
lauryl sulfate as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations as well
as its use as a component of food contact sanitizing solutions.
    Sodium lauryl sulfate has low acute oral and dermal toxicity but is
irritating to the skin and eye at high doses. Sodium lauryl sulfate is
not a skin sensitizer. Sodium lauryl sulfate was negative in tests for
genotoxicity. The repeated dose toxicity data on alkyl sulfates
including sodium lauryl sulfate demonstrate effects consistent with
surfactant-mediated irritant effects. The common target organs of
toxicity following repeated-dose oral exposure were the forestomach in
gavage studies, and the liver and kidneys in dietary studies. No
evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in any of the available studies.
Chronic toxicity data on sodium lauryl sulfate is available in limited,
summary form. A developmental toxicity study with sodium lauryl sulfate
in rats, rabbits and mice demonstrated developmental toxicity at
maternally toxic doses at a dose level of 600 milligrams/kilogram/day
(mg/kg/day). A 2-generation reproductive toxicity study conducted with
a related chemical, [alpha]-alkyl (C12) olefin sulfonate,
showed no treatment-related adverse reproductive effects.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by sodium lauryl sulfate as well as the no-
observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-
effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in the document Sodium Lauryl Sulfate. Human Health
Risk Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a
Tolerance When Used as an Inert Ingredient in Pesticide Formulations.
pages 6-9 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0041.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no
adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a
NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-term,
intermediate-term, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing
food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable
UFs is not exceeded. This latter value is referred to as the level of
concern (LOC).
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates
risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for sodium lauryl sulfate
used for human risk assessment is shown in the following Table.

Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Sodium Lauryl Sulfate for Use in Human Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Point of Departure and
          Exposure/Scenario               Uncertainty/Safety     RfD, PAD, LOC for Risk  Study and Toxicological
                                               Factors                 Assessment                Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (all populations)            An endpoint attributable to a single exposure was not seen in the
                                               database; therefore, a point of departure was not selected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chronic dietary (all populations)      NOAEL= 100 mg/kg/day     Chronic RfD = 1 mg/kg/   28-Day oral (gavage)
                                       UFA = 10x..............   day                      toxicity study in rats
                                       UFH = 10x..............  cPAD = 1 mg/kg/day.....  LOAEL = 200 mg/kg/
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........                            day,based on decreased
                                                                                body weight gain
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental oral, dermal and            NOAEL= 100 mg/kg/day     Residential/             28-Day oral (gavage)
 inhalation (short-term and            Dermal absorption of 1%   occupational LOC for     toxicity study in rats
 intermediate-term)                     inhalation exposure is   MOE = 100                LOAEL = 200 mg/kg/day,
                                        assumed to be                                     based on decreased
                                        equivalent to oral                                body weight gain
                                        exposure.
                                       UFA = 10x..............
                                       UFH = 10x..............
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation)          Classification: Based on limted data sodium lauryl sulfate is not
                                                              expected to be carcinogenic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Point of Departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point that is derived from observed dose-response data
  and used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally
  relevant human exposures. NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect
  level. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential
  variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). PAD = population adjusted dose
  (a=acute, c=chronic). FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor. RfD = reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure. LOC =
  level of concern.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to sodium lauryl sulfate, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA
assessed dietary exposures from sodium lauryl sulfate in food as
follows:
     i. Acute exposure. No adverse effects attributable to a single
exposure of sodium lauryl sulfate were seen in the toxicity databases;
therefore, an acute dietary exposure assessment for sodium lauryl
sulfate is not necessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used food consumption information from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue
levels in food, no residue data were submitted for sodium lauryl
sulfate. In the absence of specific residue data, EPA has developed an
approach which uses surrogate information to derive upper bound
exposure estimates for the subject inert ingredient. Upper bound
exposure estimates are based on the highest tolerance for a given
commodity from a list of high-use insecticides, herbicides, and
fungicides. A complete description of the general approach taken to
assess inert ingredient risks in the absence of residue data is found
at http://www.regulations.gov in the document Alkyl Amines
Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food and
Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Inerts in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0738.
    In the dietary exposure assessment, the Agency assumed that the
residue level of the inert ingredient would be no higher than the
highest tolerance for a given commodity. Implicit in this assumption is
that there would be similar rates of degradation (if any) between the
active and inert ingredient and that the concentration of inert
ingredient in the scenarios leading to these highest of tolerances
would be no higher than the concentration of the active ingredient.
    In addition to dietary exposures resulting from use of sodium
lauryl sulfate as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulation
application to crops, a conservative dietary exposure estimate of
residues of sodium lauryl sulfate in food as a result of its use as a
component in food contact sanitizing solution was also performed. This
estimate also utilizes conservative assumptions related to the amount
of residues that can be transferred to foods as a result of use of food
contact sanitizing products.
    The Agency believes the assumptions used to estimate dietary
exposures lead to an extremely conservative assessment of dietary risk
due to a series of compounded conservatisms. First, assuming that the
level of residue for an inert ingredient is equal to the level of
residue for the active ingredient will overstate exposure. The
concentration of active ingredients in agricultural products is
generally at least 50 percent of the product and often can be much
higher. Further, pesticide products rarely have a single inert
ingredient; rather, there is generally a combination of different inert
ingredients used thereby further reducing the concentration of any
single inert ingredient in the pesticide product in relation to that of
the active ingredient.
    Second, the conservatism of this methodology is compounded by EPA's
decision to assume that, for each commodity, the active ingredient
which will serve as a guide to the potential level of inert ingredient
residues is the active ingredient with the highest tolerance level.
This assumption overstates residue values because it would be highly
unlikely, given the high number of inert ingredients, that a single
inert ingredient or class of ingredients would be present at the level
of the active ingredient in the highest tolerance for every commodity.
Finally, a third compounding conservatism is EPA's assumption that all
foods contain the inert ingredient at the highest tolerance level. In
other words, EPA assumed 100 percent of all foods are treated with the
inert ingredient at the rate and manner necessary to produce the
highest residue legally possible for an active ingredient. In summary,
EPA chose a very conservative method for estimating the level of inert
residue that could be on food, then used this methodology to choose the
highest possible residue that could be found on food and assumed that
all food contained this residue. No consideration was given to
potential degradation between harvest and consumption even though
monitoring data show that tolerance level residues

are typically one to two orders of magnitude higher than actual
residues in food when distributed in commerce.
    Accordingly, although sufficient information to quantify actual
residue levels in food is not available, the compounding of these
conservative assumptions will lead to a significant exaggeration of
actual exposures. EPA does not believe that this approach
underestimates exposure in the absence of residue data.
    iii. Cancer. There is no evidence that sodium lauryl sulfate is
carcinogenic. While the full study reports are not available, summary
data on two carcinogenicity studies with sodium (C12-
C15) alkyl sulfate show no increase in tumor incidence, nor
any impact on tumor type at levels up to up to 1.5% highest dose tested
(HDT) in the diet.
    Since the Agency has not identified any concerns for
carcinogenicity relating to sodium lauryl sulfate, a cancer dietary
exposure assessment was not performed.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for sodium lauryl sulfate. Tolerance level residues
and/or 100% CT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for sodium lauryl sulfate in drinking water. These
simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and
fate/transport characteristics of sodium lauryl sulfate. Further
information regarding EPA drinking water models used in the pesticide
exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/
water/index.htm.
    A screening level drinking water analysis, based on the Pesticide
Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) was
performed to calculate the estimated drinking water concentrations
(EDWCs) of sodium lauryl sulfate. Modeling runs on four surrogate inert
ingredients using a range of physical chemical properties that would
bracket those of sodium lauryl sulfate were conducted. Modeled acute
drinking water values ranged from 0.001 parts per billion (ppb) to 41
ppb. Modeled chronic drinking water values ranged from 0.0002 ppb to 19
ppb. Further details of this drinking water analysis can be found at
http://www.regulations.gov in the document Sodium Lauryl Sulfate. Human
Health Risk Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption from the
Requirement of a Tolerance When Used as an Inert Ingredients in
Pesticide Formulations, pages 10 and 25-27 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OPP-2008-0041.
    For the purpose of the screening level dietary risk assessment to
support this request for an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for sodium lauryl sulfate, a conservative drinking water
concentration value of 100 ppb based on screening level modeling was
used to assess the contribution to drinking water for chronic dietary
risk assessments for the parent compounds and for the metabolites of
concern. These values were directly entered into the dietary exposure
model.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Sodium lauryl sulfate
may be used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products that are
registered for specific uses that may result in both indoor and outdoor
residential exposures. A screening level residential exposure and risk
assessment was completed for products containing sodium lauryl sulfate.
The Agency conducted an assessment to represent worst-case residential
exposure by assessing sodium lauryl sulfate in pesticide formulations
resulting in the highest residential exposures, including both
residential handler exposures and residential post-application
exposures. Further details of this residential exposure and risk
analysis can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document
Joint Insert Task Force (JITF) Inert Ingredients. Residential and
Occupational Exposure Assessment Algorithms and Assumptions Appendix
for the Human Health Risk Assessments to Support Proposed Exemption
from the Requirement of a Tolerance When Used as Inert Ingredients in
Pesticide Formulations, in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0710.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' EPA has not found sodium
lauryl sulfate to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other
substances, and sodium lauryl sulfate does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that sodium lauryl sulfate
does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(c) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety
factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal
toxicology database for sodium lauryl sulfate includes a prenatal
developmental toxicity study in rats, rabbits, and mice as well as a 2-
generation reproduction toxicity study in rats on a closely related
compound. There was no evidence of increased quantitative or
qualitative susceptibility following in utero exposure of rats, rabbits
or mice in the developmental toxicity study and no evidence of
increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility of offspring in
the reproduction study. Developmental toxicity was not observed in the
developmental toxicity study at doses below that which maternal
toxicity was also observed. In the reproduction study, no offspring or
maternal toxicity was observed at the highest dose tested (HDT) of 285
mg/kg/day. There is no evidence of neurotoxicity in the toxicity
database for sodium lauryl sulfate.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for sodium lauryl sulfate is considered
adequate for assessing the risks to infants and children (the available
studies are described in Unit IV.D.2.).
     ii. No evidence of quantitative or qualitative increased
susceptibility was demonstrated in the offspring in a

developmental toxicity study in rats, rabbits, and mice following in
utero and prenatal exposure or in young rats in the 2-generation
reproduction study.
    iii. There is no indication that sodium lauryl sulfate is a
neurotoxic chemical and thus there is no need for a developmental
neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iv. The Agency has concluded that an additional uncertainty factor
is not needed for the use of a subchronic study for a chronic exposure
assessment as reported NOAELs in two chronic rat studies were at the
same levels as the POD derived from a subchronic toxicity study.
     v. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The food and drinking water assessment is not likely to
underestimate exposure to any subpopulation, including those comprised
of infants and children. The food exposure assessments are considered
to be highly conservative as they are based on the use of the highest
tolerance level from the surrogate pesticides for every food and the
assumption that for all crops, 100% of the crop is treated as well as
similarly conservative assumptions related to the transfer of residues
of sodium lauryl sulfate into food from its use in food contact
sanitizing solutions. EPA also made conservative (protective)
assumptions in the ground water and surface water modeling used to
assess exposure to sodium lauryl sulfate in drinking water. EPA used
similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure
of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
sodium lauryl sulfate.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term, and
chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate
food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable
UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. There was no hazard attributable to a single
exposure seen in the toxicity database for sodium lauryl sulfate.
Therefore, sodium lauryl sulfate is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. A chronic aggregate risk assessment takes into
account exposure estimates from chronic dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit
for chronic exposure, the chronic dietary exposure from food and water
to sodium lauryl sulfate is 19% of the cPAD for the U.S. population and
67% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the most highly exposed
population subgroup.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Sodium lauryl sulfate is used in pesticide products that are
currently registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to sodium lauryl sulfate. Using the
exposure assumptions described in this unit, EPA has concluded that the
combined short-term aggregated food, water, and residential exposures
result in aggregate MOEs of 500, for both adult males and females,
respectively. Adult residential exposure combines high end dermal and
inhalation handler indoor and outdoor exposure with a high end post
application dermal exposure. EPA has concluded that the combined short-
term aggregated food, water, and residential exposures result in an
aggregate MOE of 147 for children. Children's residential exposure
combines outdoor and indoor dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures. As the
level of concern is for MOEs that are lower than 100, these MOEs are
not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    Sodium lauryl sulfate is used in products currently registered for
uses that could result in intermediate-term residential exposure and
the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic
exposure through food and water with intermediate-term residential
exposures to sodium lauryl sulfate. Using the exposure assumptions
described in this unit, EPA has concluded that the combined
intermediate-term aggregated food, water, and residential exposures
result in aggregate MOEs of 660 for both adult males and females,
respectively. Adult residential exposure includes high end post
application dermal exposure from contact with treated lawns. EPA has
concluded that the combined intermediate-term aggregated food, water,
and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 148 for
children. Children's residential exposure combines outdoor and indoor
dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures. As the level of concern is for MOEs
that are lower than 100, these MOEs are not of concern.
     5.  Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency has not
identified any concerns for carcinogenicity relating to sodium lauryl
sulfate.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments and the
limitation imposed in the exemption, EPA concludes that, with respect
to the exemption, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to the general population, or to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to residues of sodium lauryl sulfate under
reasonably foreseeable circumstances.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

     An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes
since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

B. International Residue Limits

    The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for
sodium lauryl sulfate nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue Levels been
established for any food crops at this time.

VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established for residues of sodium lauryl sulfate as a component of
food contact sanitizing solutions applied to all food contact surfaces
in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-
processing equipment and utensils at a maximum level in the end-use
concentration of 350 ppm.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes an exemtpion from the requirement of a
tolerance under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition
submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has

exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001)
or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the exemption in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 6, 2009.
G. Jeffrey Herndon,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec. 180.940(a), the table is amended by revising the following
entry to read as follows:

Sec.  180.940   Tolerance exemptions for active and inert ingredients
for use in antimicrobial formulations (Food-contact surface sanitizing
solutions).

* * * * *
     (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Pesticide chemical            CAS Reg. No.           Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Sulfuric acid monododecyl ester,  151-21-3            When ready for
 sodium salt (sodium lauryl                            use, the end-use
 sulfate).                                             concentration is
                                                       not to exceed 350
                                                       ppm.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E9-19314 Filed 8-11-09 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 40386]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17461]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Organization
Designation Authorization-Part 183, Subpart D

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on June 7, 2018. This collection involves organizations
applying to perform certification functions on behalf of the FAA,
including approving data and issuing various aircraft and organization
certificates.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by September 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara
Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway,
Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Hall by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0704.
    Title: Organization Designation Authorization-Part 183, Subpart D.
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 8100-13.
    Type of Review: Extension without change of an information
collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on June 7, 2018 (83 FR 26538). 49 U.S.C. Section 44702(d)
empowers the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to
delegate to any properly qualified private person functions related to
the examination, inspection, and testing necessary to the issuance of
certificates. Subpart D to part 183 allows the FAA to appoint
organizations as representatives of the administrator. As authorized,
these organizations perform certification functions on behalf of the
FAA. Applications are submitted to the appropriate FAA office and are
reviewed by the FAA to determine whether the applicant meets the
requirements necessary to be authorized as a representative of the
Administrator. Procedures manuals are submitted and approved by the FAA
as a means to ensure that the correct processes are utilized when
performing functions on behalf of the FAA. These requirements are
necessary to manage the various approvals issued by the organization
and to document approvals issued and must be maintained in order to
address potential future safety issues.
    Respondents: The application form is submitted to the appropriate
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) office by an interested
organization.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 43.5 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 5,623 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 7, 2018.
Robin Darden,
Management Support Specialist, Performance, Policy, and Records
Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2018-17461 Filed 8-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:The attached files are the following docket-related documents:
?  U.S. DOT/FAA - Notice of proposed rulemaking
?  U.S. DOT/FAA - Notice of proposed rulemaking grid
?  U.S. DOT/FAA - Economic and Regulatory Evaluation


COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION

FOR

IMPLEMENTATION OF

BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY

STATE OPERATING PERMIT

FOR

Georgia Pacific

Big Island

Section 110 of the federal Clean Air Act prescribes the requirements for
the contents, adoption and submittal of the state implementation plan
(SIP).  Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that the plan contain
adequate provisions prohibiting emissions in amounts which will
interfere with measures required to be included in the plan to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility.

Part C (Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality) of §
160 establishes the purposes of the part as follows:

	(1)  to protect public health and welfare from any actual or potential
adverse effect which in the Administrator's judgment may reasonably be
anticipated to occur from air pollution or from exposures to pollutants
in other media, which pollutants originate as emissions to the ambient
air, notwithstanding attainment and maintenance of all national ambient
air quality standards;

	(2)  to preserve, protect and enhance the air quality in national
parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments, national
seashores, and other areas of special national or regional natural,
recreational, scenic or historical value;

	(3)  to insure that economic growth will occur in a manner consistent
with the preservation of existing clean air resources;

	(4)  to assure that emissions from any source in any state will not
interfere with any portion of the applicable implementation plan to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality for any other state;
and

	(5)  to assure that any decision to permit increased air pollution in
any area to which this section applies is made only after careful
evaluation of all the consequences of such a decision and after adequate
procedural opportunities for informed public participation in the
decision making process.

Section 165 addresses the preconstruction requirements for major sources
to be built in areas classified as PSD areas (federal class I areas).
Section 165(b)(2) addresses the responsibility of the federal land
manager that has authority over federal class I areas:

	The Federal Land Manager and the Federal official charged with direct
responsibility for management of such lands shall have an affirmative
responsibility to protect the air quality related values (including
visibility) of any such lands within a class I area and to consider, in
consultation with the Administrator, whether a proposed major emitting
facility will have an adverse impact on such values. . . . In cases
where the Federal Land Manager demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
state that the emissions from such facility will have an adverse impact
on the air quality related values (including visibility) . . . a permit
shall not be issued.

Section 169(A) addresses visibility protection for federal class I
areas:

	Congress hereby declares as a national goal the prevention of any
future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in
mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade
air pollution.

This section also provides timeframes by which the Secretary of the
Interior and the Administrator will interact to assess visibility,
develop federal regulations including specific source exemptions and
public participation and the promulgation of those regulations.

Section 169(B) addresses the need for studies and assessment of current
sources of visibility, impacts of other provisions, establishment of
visibility transport regions and commissions, duties of the
Administrator and the establishment of the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission.

40 CFR 51.166, SIPs for new source review and source modifications,
requires that the plans (in accordance with the policy of § 101(b)(1)
and the purpose of § 160 contain emission limitations and such other
measures as may be necessary to prevent significant deterioration of air
quality.

Visibility is specifically addressed in 40 CFR 51.166(o), additional
impact analysis:

	(1)  The owner or operator shall provide an analysis of the impairment
to visibility, soils, and vegetation that would occur as a result of the
source or modification and general commercial, residential, industrial,
and other growth associated with the source or modification....

40 CFR 51.166(p) addresses sources affecting federal class I
areas-additional requirements.

	(p)(2)  The Federal Land Manager and the Federal official charged with
direct responsibility for management of Class I lands have an
affirmative responsibility to protect the air quality related values
(including visibility) of any such lands and to consider, in
consultation with the with the Administrator, whether a proposed source
or modification would have an adverse impact on such values.

On July 1, 1999, EPA published a final rule to address regional haze (64
FR 35714).  The regional haze rule requires states to submit SIPs to
address regional haze visibility impairment in federally protected parks
and wilderness areas, which are known as “mandatory Class I federal
areas” or “Class I areas.”  The 1999 rule was issued to fulfill
the requirements of §§ 169A and 169B.  In this rule, EPA included a
requirement for BART for certain large stationary sources that were put
in place between 1962 and 1977.  The regulatory requirements for BART
were codified at 40 CFR 51.308(e) and in definitions that appear in 40
CFR 51.301.

Sections 169A(b)(2)(A) and 169A(g)(7) use the term “major stationary
source” to describe those sources that are the focus of the BART
requirement.  To avoid confusion with other requirements which also use
the term “major stationary source,” the regional haze rule uses the
term “BART-eligible source.”  BART-eligible sources (i) have the
potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air
pollutant, (ii) were in place between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977,
and (iii) have operations that fall within one or more of 26 listed
source categories.  BART is required for any BART-eligible source which
a state determines “emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in
any such area.”  Accordingly, for stationary sources meeting these
criteria, states must address the BART requirement when developing
regional haze SIPs.

Section 169A(g)(7) requires that states consider the following factors
in making BART determinations: (i) the costs of compliance, (ii) the
energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, (iii) any
existing pollution control technology in use at the source, (iv) the
remaining useful life of the source, and (v) the degree of improvement
in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use
of such technology.  These statutory factors for BART were codified at
40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii).

In response to various legal challenges, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a
ruling in 2002 striking down the regional haze rule in part and
upholding it in part.  On July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39103), EPA promulgated
final regulations to address the court’s decisions (40 CFR 51.302 and
51.308), and to provide BART determination guidance (Appendix Y to 40
CFR Part 51).  The purpose of the guidelines is to assist states as they
identify which of their BART-eligible sources should undergo a BART
analysis, and select controls in light of the statutory factors (the
BART determination).

Georgia Pacific Big Island, located in Bedford County, Virginia, has
been identified as a source subject to the BART requirements.  A legally
enforceable mechanism (federally enforceable state operating permit) has
been drafted to ensure compliance with the BART requirements and is
included as Attachment A.  Attachment B presents the statement of basis
to support the terms and conditions of the permit, including the
determination and analysis to support the BART determination for the
control of visibility-impairing pollutants (particulate matter, nitrogen
oxides, and sulfur dioxide) from the facility.  The permit is being
issued pursuant to Article 52 (9 VAC 5-40-7550 et seq.) of 9 VAC 5-40
(Existing Stationary Sources) and Article 5 (9 VAC 5-80-800 et seq.) of
9 VAC 5-80 (Permits for Stationary Sources) of state regulations and is
federally enforceable upon issuance.

TEMPLATES\SOURCE-SPECIFIC\PLN01

SRCESPEC\G-P BIG ISLAND\GPBI-SIP-1.DOC

LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE MECHANISM (PERMIT)

TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH BART REQUIREMENTS

FOR

Georgia Pacific

Big Island, Virginia

Registration No. 30389

Under the authority provided in 9 VAC 5-170-180 and Section II of Agency
Policy Statement No. 3-2006 (dated October 20, 2006), the Director of
the West Central Regional Office approved and issued the permit on June
12, 2008, to be effective that same day.  The permit was approved and
issued following the procedural requirements of Virginia's federally
enforceable state operating permit program, Article 5 (9 VAC 5-80-800 et
seq.) of Part II of 9 VAC 5-80 (Permits for Stationary Sources).

 STATEMENT OF BASIS FOR

DETERMINATION OF THE CONTROL OF

VISIBILITY-IMPAIRING POLLUTANTS

FROM

Georgia Pacific

Big Island, Virginia

Registration No. 30389

ENCLOSURE 1

ATTACHMENT A

ATTACHMENT B


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55376-55378]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22502]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0184]

Hours of Service of Drivers: PTS Worldwide, Inc.; Application for
Exemption

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

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it has received an application from PTS
Worldwide, Inc. (PTS) (USDOT 1835654) for an exemption from the hours-
of-service (HOS) requirement that drivers utilizing the sleeper-berth
(S/B) exception obtain a period of at least 8 consecutive hours in the
S/B, plus an additional 2 hours either in the S/B, off duty, or any
combination thereof. PTS transports highly sensitive cargo for the
Department of Defense (DOD) and proposes that its team drivers be
permitted to obtain 10 hours in the S/B in two periods, neither less
than 4 hours long. This would allow the driver to split the required 10
hours into segments of \4/6\, \5/5\, or \6/4\ hours. FMCSA requests
public comment on PTS's application for exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 15, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2019-0184 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. See the
Public Participation and Request for Comments section below for further
information.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to

www.regulations.gov, including any personal information included in a
comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The on-line FDMS is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2019-0184), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number, in the body of
your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov and put
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2019-0184'' in the ``Keyword'' box and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box in the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your comments by
mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the
facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted and
provide an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency performs a review of safety analyses and public comments
submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely
achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than the level that
would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The
Agency will publish its decision in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must specify the effective period (up to 5 years)
and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption
may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Request for Exemption

    The Agency's HOS rules (49 CFR part 395) generally require
operators of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) transporting property to
obtain 10 consecutive hours off duty before they can drive again after
they accumulate the maximum 11 hours of driving or reach the end of the
14-hour duty period, whichever comes first (49 CFR 395.3). However,
drivers whose CMV is equipped with a qualifying sleeper berth (S/B) may
accumulate the equivalent of 10 consecutive hours off duty in two
separate periods, one of at least 8 (but less than 10) consecutive
hours in the S/B, and another of at least 2 consecutive hours off duty,
whether in the S/B, off duty, or any combination thereof. It does not
matter which of these two periods comes first. When the driver has
obtained the two qualifying periods, the S/B rule provides the driver
more on-duty and driving time.
    PTS transports sensitive Department of Defense (DOD) property,
including ammunition and explosives, in interstate commerce. For
security reasons, this transportation requires a team of two drivers.
PTS seeks by exemption to allow its team drivers to split the
equivalent of 10 hours off duty into two S/B periods, neither less than
4 hours long. This would allow splits of \4/6\, \5/5\, or \6/4\ hours.
This request is limited to team operations and is in no way a request
to apply any such exemption to solo driver operations.
    PTS states that its team drivers travel over 1,100 miles per 24
hours, and average 60 hours on duty per week. After 5 weeks on the
road, PTS drivers receive a week off duty at home. PTS asserts that due
to the nature of its business, these drivers would be more alert if
allowed to take shorter rest periods in the S/B. It believes that the
shorter period would allow PTS drivers to obtain nighttime hours in the
S/B and thereby minimize driver fatigue. PTS states that its vehicle
and driver safety record is better than the national average and that
it has one of the best safety, security, and service records of all DOD
arms and ammunition transporters. All power units are equipped, and any
new power units will be equipped, with on-board electronic recorders to
track driving and on-duty time, and all power units are governed to 70
miles per hour.

IV. Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety

    To ensure an equivalent level of safety, PTS offers to split 10
off-duty hours into two periods, neither less than 4 hours long. This
would allow splits of \4/6\, \5/5\, or \6/4\ hours. In addition, the
PTS request would be limited to team driver operations. PTS' exemption
application references a study concerning the effects on sleep that
found sleeper berth flexibility to be a better choice than consolidated
daytime sleep when consolidated nighttime sleep is not possible. PTS
referenced additional studies that identified sleeper berth flexibility
as a contributor to normalizing sleeping patterns and reducing fatigue.
PTS requests the exemption be granted for the maximum allowable period
(5 years). A copy of PTS's application for exemption is available for
review in the docket for this notice.

    Issued on: October 9, 2019.
Larry W. Minor,
 Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-22502 Filed 10-15-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P