[Federal Register: December 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 242)]
[Notices]
[Page 71682-71683]
[DOCID:fr18de07-51]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0026, FRL-8507-8]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; National Water Quality Inventory
Reports (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 1560.08, OMB Control No. 2040-0071

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an
existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below,
describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated
burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 17,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2003-0026, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket

Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket (2822T), 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to:
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alice Mayio, Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division, Office of Water, Mail Code: 4503T, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On July 31, 2007 (72 FR 41749), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0026, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave.,

NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
http://www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the

index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives

them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted
material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information
whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further
information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: National Water Quality Inventory Reports (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1560.08, OMB Control No. 2040-0071.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2007.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires States to
identify and rank waters which cannot meet water quality standards
(WQS) following the implementation of technology-based controls. Under
Section 303(d), States are also required to establish total maximum
daily loads (TMDLs) for listed waters not meeting standards as a result
of pollutant discharges. In developing the Section 303(d) lists, States
are required to consider various sources of water-quality related data
and information, including the Section 305(b) State water quality
reports. The State Section 305(b) reports contain information on the
extent of water quality degradation, the pollutants and sources
affecting water quality, and State progress in controlling water
pollution.
    EPA's Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (AWPD) works
with its Regional counterparts to review and approve or disapprove
State Section 303(d) lists and TMDLs from 56 respondents (the 50
States, the District of Columbia, and the five Territories). Section
303(d) specifically requires States to develop lists and TMDLs ``from
time to time'' and EPA to review and approve or disapprove the lists
and the TMDLs. EPA also collects State 305(b) reports from 59
respondents (the 50 States, the District of Columbia, five Territories,
and 3 River Basin commissions).
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average
66,590 hours per year per respondent for the 56 respondents with both
305(b) and 303(d) responsibilities and TMDL development activities. The
average reporting burden for the 3 respondents with only 305(b)
responsibilities is estimated at 3,659 hours per year. Burden means the
total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements which have
subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a
collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the
collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: States, Territories, River Basin
Commissions.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 59.
    Frequency of Response: Biennially.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 3,740,017.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $177,837,808, includes no capital or
O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in hours in the total
estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved
ICR Burdens.

    Dated: December 12, 2007.
Sara Hisel-McCoy,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E7-24511 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 66)]
[Notices]
[Page 17150-17152]
[DOCID:fr06ap07-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

April 2, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC07-73-000.
    Applicants: STI Capital Company; Pedricktown Plant Holdings, LLC.
    Description: STI Capital Company and Pedricktown Plant Holdings
submit an application for authorization to dispose of jurisdictional
facilities.
    Filed Date: 03/28/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070330-0023.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 18, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER97-4281-016; ER99-2161-007; ER99-3000-006; ER02-
1572-004; ER02-1571-004; ER99-1115-011; ER99-1116-011; ER00-2810-005;
ER99-4359-004; ER99-4358-004; ER99-2168-007; ER98-1127-011; ER07-649-
001; ER99-2162-007; ER00-2807-005; ER00-2809-005; ER98-1796-010; ER00-
1259-006; ER99-4355-004; ER99-4356-004; ER00-3160-006; ER99-4357-004;
ER00-3160-006; ER00-2313-006; ER02-2/-004; ER02-1396-004; ER02-1412-
004; ER00-3718-005; ER99-3637-005; ER07-486-002; ER99-1712-007; ER00-
2808-006.
    Applicants: NRG Power Marketing, Inc.; Arthur Kill Power LLC;
Astoria Gas Turbines Power LLC; Bayou Cove Peaking Power LLC; Big Cajun
I Peaking Power LLC; Cabrillo Power I LLC; Cabrillo Power II LLC;
Conemaugh Power LLC; Connecticut Jet Power LLC; Devon Power LLC;
Dunkirk Power LLC; El Segundo Power, LLC; El Segundo Power II LLC;
Huntley Power LLC; Indian River Power LLC; Keystone Power LLC; Long
Beach Generation LLC; Louisiana Generating LLC; Middletown Power LLC;
Montville Power LLC; NEO Freehold-Gen LLC; Norwalk Power LLC; NRG
Energy Center Dover LLC; NRG Energy Center Paxton LLC; NRG New Jersey
Energy Sales LLC; NRG Rockford LLC; NRG Rockford II LLC; NRG
Sterlington Power LLC; Oswego Harbor Power LLC; Saguaro Power Company,
A Limited Partnership; Somerset Power LLC; Vienna Power LLC
    Description: NRG Power Marketing, Inc and thirty-one affiliates
most of which own generating facilities submit a triennial market power
update and notice of change in status.
    Filed Date: 03/26/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070330-0022.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 16, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER99-2342-010.
    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.
    Description: Tampa Electric Company submits a refund report.
    Filed Date: 03/19/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070319-5044.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 09, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER02-488-006.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits an amendment to its 2/12/07 submittal, proposed revisions to
the Operating Protocol for Existing Generators, First Revised Rate
Schedule 4.
    Filed Date: 03/29/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070402-0078.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-275-002.
    Applicants: Northeast Utilities Service Company.
    Description: Connecticut Light and Power Company et al. submit a
supplemental filing providing back-up data detailing the actual CWIP
and AFUDC monthly balances etc. in response to FERC's directives and
its (2006) Order.
    Filed Date: 03/16/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070330-0020.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 06, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-516-001.
    Applicants: Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc.
    Description: Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc submits an amended
report and declaration regarding a bilateral spot transaction for which
MSCG was the seller in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council
region.
    Filed Date: 03/29/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070402-0092.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-529-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits a Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet 7 et al. to FERC Electric
Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1 pursuant to section 205 of the FPA.
    Filed Date: 03/29/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070402-0068.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-656-001.
    Applicants: CMT Fund IX LLC.
    Description: CMT Fund IX LLC submits an amended Original Sheet 1 et
al. to its FERC Electric Rate Schedule.
    Filed Date: 03/29/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070402-0077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 9, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-669-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc submits
proposed revisions to its Market Administration and Control Area
Services Tariff and Open Access Transmission Tariff etc.
    Filed Date: 03/28/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070330-0025.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 18, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-673-000.
    Applicants: Reliant Energy Wholesale Generation, LLC.
    Description: Reliant Energy Wholesale Generation, LLC submits a
proposed FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 7 and supporting cost
data etc.
    Filed Date: 03/29/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070330-0125.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-674-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Wisconsin Electric Power Company submits a Notice of
Cancellation of its Master Close-Out Netting Agreement with Southern
Company Energy Marketing, Rate Schedule No. 95.
    Filed Date: 03/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070402-0037.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 20, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-675-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection LLC submits an executed
interconnection service agreement with Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm LLC et
al. and a notice of cancellation for an interconnection service
agreement etc.
    Filed Date: 03/29/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070402-0038.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-676-000.
    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.
    Description: Tampa Electric Company submits a Third Revised Sheet
121 for inclusion in its open access transmission tariff pursuant to
section 205 of the FPA etc.
    Filed Date: 03/29/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070402-0039.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-677-000.
    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Power Company.
    Description: Sierra Pacific Power Company submits an amendment to a
Power Purchase Agreement w/ Nevada Power Company pursuant to sections
205 (c) & (d) of the FPA etc.
    Filed Date: 03/29/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070402-0131.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-678-000.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Nevada Power Company submits its amendments to two
Power Purchase Agreements with Sierra Power Company.
    Filed Date: 03/29/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070402-0051.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-679-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Public Service Company of New Mexico submits
Substitute Sheet 207 et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 6.
    Filed Date: 03/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070402-0070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 20, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign
utility company status filings:
    Docket Numbers: FC07-21-000.
    Applicants: CMS (India) Operations and Maintenance Company Private
Limited.
    Description: CMS (India) Operations and Maintenance Company Private
Limited submits a notification of Self-Certification of Foreign Utility
Company Status.
    Filed Date: 03/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070330-5017.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 20, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: FC07-22-000.
    Applicants: CMS International Operating Company.
    Description: CMS International Operating Company submits a notice
of Self-Certification of Foreign Utility Company Status.
    Filed Date: 03/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070330-5018.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 20, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: FC07-23-000.
    Applicants: ST-CMS Electric Company Private Limited.
    Description: ST-CMS Electric Company Private Limited submits a
Notice of Self-Certification of Foreign Utility.
    Filed Date: 03/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070330-5022.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 20, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: FC07-24-000.
    Applicants: Jorf Lasfar Energy Company SCA.
    Description: Jorf Lasfar Energy Co SCA submits a notice of Self-
Certification of Foreign Utility Company Status.
    Filed Date: 03/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070330-5025.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 20, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: FC07-25-000.
    Applicants: Shuweihat O&M Limited Partnership.
    Description: Shuweihat O&M Limited Partnership submits a notice of
Self-Certification of Foreign Utility Company Status.
    Filed Date: 03/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070330-5027.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 20, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: FC07-26-000.
    Applicants: Jubail Energy Company.
    Description: Jubail Energy Company submits a notice of Self-
Certification of Foreign Utility Company Status.
    Filed Date: 03/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070330-5031.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 20, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: FC07-27-000.
    Applicants: CMS Morocco Operating Company SCA.
    Description: CMS Morocco Operating Co SCA submits a notice of Self-
Certification of Foreign Utility Company Status.
    Filed Date: 03/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070330-5034.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 20, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: FC07-28-000.
    Applicants: Shuweihat CMS International Power Company.
    Description: Shuweihat CMS International Power Company submits a
notice of Self-Certification Foreign Utility Company Status.
    Filed Date: 03/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070330-5037.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 20, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: FC07-29-000.
    Applicants: Takoradi International Company.
    Description: Takoradi International Company submits a notice of
Self-Certification of Foreign Utility Company Status.
    Filed Date: 03/30/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070330-5040.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 20, 2007.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-6432 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 24, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44473-44475]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17765]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0626; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-180-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
DASSAULT AVIATION Model FAN JET FALCON; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200
airplanes; and Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of defective fire
extinguisher bottle cartridges. This proposed AD would require checking
manufacturing references of pyrotechnical cartridges for batch number
and date, repetitive checking of cartridges for electrical continuity,
and replacing defective pyrotechnical cartridges if necessary. We are
proposing this AD to detect and correct defective fire bottle
cartridges, which could affect the capability to extinguish a fire in
an engine, auxiliary power unit, or rear compartment, which could
result in damage to the airplane and injury to the occupants.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 9,
2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-
227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0626;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-180-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the aviation
authority for the Member States of the European Community, has issued
EASA

Airworthiness Directive 2012-0190, dated September 24, 2012 (referred
to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    Several defective fire bottle cartridges have been reported on
certain Dassault Aviation Fan Jet Falcon and Myst[egrave]re-Falcon
20-() 5 aeroplanes.
    The results of the investigations concluded that there was a
production quality issue with the fire bottle cartridge. In
addition, the part numbers (P/N) of the fire bottle cartridge and
the batch numbers have been identified.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could constitute
a dormant failure that might impact the capability to extinguish a
fire, either in an engine or the Auxiliary Power Unit, or the rear
compartment, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and
injury to the occupants.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires
repetitive checking of the electrical continuity [and of the
references] of the fire extinguishers bottles cartridges
[extinguisher bottle cartridges] and depending on findings,
replacement of an affected part with a serviceable part. It also
ultimately requires replacement of any affected cartridges with a
serviceable part. In addition, this [EASA] AD prohibits installation
of an affected fire extinguisher bottle cartridge.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Dassault has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin F20-783, Revision 1,
dated June 11, 2012 (for Model FAN JET FALCON and MYSTERE-FALCON 20-()5
airplanes); and Mandatory Service Bulletin F200-128, Revision 1, dated
June 11, 2012 (for Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes). The actions
described in this service information are intended to correct the
unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 185 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $6,300 per product. Where
the service information lists required parts costs that are covered
under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these
parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties,
some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $1,244,125, or $6,725 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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 AD:

Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2013-0626; Directorate Identifier
2012-NM-180-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 9, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the DASSAULT AVIATION airplanes identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any
category, all serial numbers.
    (1) Model FAN JET FALCON airplanes,
    (2) Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes,
    (3) Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5
airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire
Protection.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of defective fire bottle
cartridges. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct defective
fire bottle cartridges which could impact the capability to
extinguish a fire, either in an engine, auxiliary power unit, or
rear compartment, which could result in damage to the airplane and
injury to the occupants.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Checks of References of Cartridges

    For airplanes equipped with fire extinguisher bottle cartridges
having a part number (P/N), batch number, and manufacturing date as
listed in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD: Within 30

days or 100 flight hours, whichever occurs first after the effective
date of this AD, check the manufacturing references of pyrotechnical
cartridges for batch number and date, and check the cartridges for
electrical continuity and resistance, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin
F20-783, Revision 1, dated June 11, 2012 (for Model FAN JET FALCON
and MYSTERE-FALCON 20-()5 airplanes); or Dassault Mandatory Service
Bulletin F200-128, Revision 1, dated June 11, 2012 (for Model
MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes).
    (1) P/N 12-12-11707S1-4, with batch up to 44 inclusive,
manufactured before May 2012.
    (2) P/N 12-12-11707S2-4, with batch up to 33 inclusive,
manufactured before May 2012.
    (3) P/N 12-12-11707S3-4, with batch up to 44 inclusive,
manufactured before May 2012.

(h) Replacement

    If, during any check as required by paragraphs (g) and (i) of
this AD, a discrepancy [excessive resistance or cartridges
references matching (g)(1) through (g)(3)] is identified, before
next flight, replace the discrepant fire extinguisher bottle
cartridge(s) with a serviceable part, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin
F20-783, Revision 1, dated June 11, 2012 (for Model FAN JET FALCON
and MYSTERE-FALCON 20-()5 airplanes); or Dassault Mandatory Service
Bulletin F200-128, Revision 1, dated June 11, 2012 (for Model
MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes). Replacement of discrepant fire
extinguisher bottle cartridges with a serviceable part terminates
the repetitive actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD for that
cartridge.

(i) Repetitive Checks

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) and (i)(2)
of this AD, repeat the checks required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes equipped with fire extinguisher bottle
cartridges having P/N 12-12-11707S3-4, having a batch number, and
manufacturing date, as listed in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD, at
intervals not to exceed 65 days.
    (2) For airplanes equipped with fire extinguisher bottle
cartridges having P/N 12-12-11707S1-4 or P/N 12-12-11707S2-4, having
a batch number, and manufacturing date, as listed in paragraph
(g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, at intervals not to exceed 12 months.

(j) Replacement

    Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Within 30 months
after installation of an affected fire extinguisher bottle cartridge
on an airplane, or within 36 months since cartridge manufacturing
date, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD,
replace each affected fire extinguisher bottle cartridge listed in
paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, with a serviceable
part, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault
Mandatory Service Bulletin F20-783, Revision 1, dated June 11, 2012
(for Model FAN JET FALCON and MYSTERE-FALCON 20-()5 airplanes); or
Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F200-128, Revision 1, dated June
11, 2012 (for Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes). Replacing the
affected fire extinguisher bottle cartridge with a serviceable part
as required by paragraph (h) or (j) of this AD, terminates the
repetitive actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD for that
cartridge.

(k) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install any
fire extinguisher bottle cartridge having a part number (P/N), batch
number, and manufacturing date as listed in paragraph (g)(1),
(g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD, on any airplane.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness
Directive 2012-0190, dated September 24, 2012; and the service
bulletins specified in (m)(1)(i) and (m)(1)(ii) of this AD, for
related information.
    (i) Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F20-783, Revision 1,
dated June 11, 2012 (for Model FAN JET FALCON and MYSTERE-FALCON 20-
()5 airplanes);
    (ii) Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F200-128, Revision 1,
dated June 11, 2012 (for Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes).
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 12, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-17765 Filed 7-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: [Shaja Joyner,<PHONE_NUMBER>]

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

TEMPLATE:

[BASF Corporation]

[Insert petition number]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (5E8366) from [BASF Corporation], [26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709-3528] proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by  establishing  tolerances for residues of the fungicide [Fluxapyroxad, (BAS 700 F); 1H-Pyrazole-4-carboxamide,3-(difluoromethyl)-1-methyl-N-(3',4',5'-triflu oro[1,1'-biphenyl]-2-yl)-, its metabolites, and degradates] in or on the following raw agricultural commodities [Banana] at [3.0] parts per million (ppm); [Coffee, green bean] at [0.2] ppm; [Mango] at [0.7] ppm; and [Papaya] at [0.6] ppm.   EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. [Nature of the residue studies were conducted in wheat, soybean and tomato as representative crops in order to characterize the fate of fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) in all crop matrices. Two radiocarbon labels were studied in each crop, with 14-C labels positioned in aniline and pyrazole ring structures. Fluxapyroxad was the predominant residue in most crops.  In all crops the fluxapyroxad Residues of Concern (ROC) were characterized as parent fluxapyroxad plus metabolites M700F048 and M700F002. A confined rotational crop study added metabolite M700F008 and confirmed that parent fluxapyroxad plus metabolites M700F008, M700F048 and M700F002 were the residues of concern in the representative rotational crops of wheat, radish, and spinach.]

	2. Analytical method. [Independently validated analytical methods have been submitted for analyzing residues of parent fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) plus metabolites M700F008, M700F048 and M700F002 with appropriate sensitivity in/on  plant/crop raw agricultural commodities and processed fractions and in animal meat, fat, liver and kidney matrices, skin milk, cream, poultry meat, fat, liver and eggs for which tolerances have been established or are being proposed.]

	3. Magnitude of residues. [Crop field trials were conducted using foliar treatment with a fluxapyroxad end-use product on the following crops: banana, mango, papaya and coffee. The studies were conducted to determine the magnitude of the residue in/on the representative raw agricultural commodities and processed fractions. The data are being submitted to propose tolerances for banana, mango, papaya and coffee, green bean. The number of field trials is in accordance with the EPA guidance document, “NAFTA Guidance Document on Data Requirements for Tolerances on Imported Commodities in the United States and Canada”, December 2005. For bananas twelve trials are submitted, three trials each in Costa Rica and Ecuador, two trials in Columbia and four trials from Brazil. The trials in Brazil are considered to also support exports from Honduras and Mexico due to a similar climate. Four trials each in mango and papaya, all trials performed in Brazil, the only country with a registered use in that commodity, are submitted. For coffee twelve trials are submitted from Brazil, the only country planning to register fluxapyroxad products with uses in coffee. Field trials were carried out using the maximum label rates, the maximum number of applications and the minimum pre-harvest interval (PHI). Residues did not concentrate in the coffee process fractions of coffee, bean, roasted or coffee, bean roasted; instant. For bananas, trials were performed with applications to bagged and unbagged fruit, and whole fruit, pulp and peel were analyzed. Residues of metabolites M700F002 and M700F048 were less than the limit of detection; residues of M700F008 were generally less than the limit of quantitation and often less than the limit of detection. Detected residues of fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) in banana, coffee, mango and papaya support the proposed import tolerances based on parent fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F).

The new uses have no impact on animal feed items, and no changes to tolerances for animal commodities are proposed.]

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  [Fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) displayed low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal and inhalation routes of exposure.  It was not irritating to the eyes, only slightly irritating to the skin, and not a dermal sensitizer. The acute toxicity studies place technical fluxapyroxad in toxicity category III for acute oral and dermal and category IV for acute inhalation, eye and skin irritation. Fluxapyroxad is not a dermal sensitizer.]

	2. Genotoxicty. [Fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) was not genotoxic in a battery of assays. Fluxapyroxad was negative for inducing mutations in bacterial and mammalian cell assays. No evidence of a clastogenic effect was observed in vitro or in vivo, and fluxapyroxad did not cause unscheduled DNA synthesis in hepatocytes of treated rats.]

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [The reproductive and developmental toxicity of fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) was investigated in a 2-generation rat reproduction study as well as in rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies. In the reproduction study, there were no effects on fertility, up to the highest dose tested of 300 mg/kg bw/d. At the high- and mid- (50 mg/kg bw/d) doses tested, fluxapyroxad administration resulted in decreased food consumption, impaired body weight development, clinical chemistry and select organ weight changes and histopathology. Impairment of pup body weight development was also seen at these doses. The NOAEL for systemic and developmental toxicity was 10 mg/kg bw/day.

In the rat developmental toxicity study, slight maternal toxicity was observed at the high dose level of 1000 mg/kg bw/d, in the form of limited clinical chemistry, liver and thyroid weight effects, and thyroid histopathology. No evidence of developmental toxicity was observed in the rat up to the highest dose tested of 1000 mg/kg bw/d.

At the highest dose tested in the rabbit teratology study (60 mg/kg bw/d), maternal toxicity consisted of clinical signs, abortion, reduced food consumption, and impaired body weight development. The only developmental effect at the high dose, which caused substantial maternal toxicity, consisted of a commonly observed, reversible external variation, paw hyperflexion. Based on the effects described, the maternal and developmental NOAEL in rabbits was 25 mg/kg bw/d.]

	4. Subchronic toxicity. [The principal target organ in all studies in rats, mice and dogs was the liver, as indicated by organ weight changes and altered clinical chemistry parameters, which were consistent with liver enzyme induction. Histopathological changes in the liver were only evident in rats. The thyroid was also identified as a target organ in rats, as indicated by organ weight changes, histopathology and thyroid hormone changes. The lowest NOAEL in subchronic oral toxicity studies was approximately 7.3 mg/kg bw/day in the rat 90-day study.

No systemic toxicity was observed in a 28-day repeat dose dermal toxicity study at doses as high as 1000 mg/kg bw/day.

The neurotoxic potential of fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) was studied following both acute and subchronic oral administration in the rat. In the acute study, treatment-related neurobehavioral effects were noted in mid and high dose animals on the day of treatment. These consisted of slight increases of the landing foot-splay in high dose males, reduction in the number of rearings in males, and impaired motor activity in high and mid dose males and females. No effects on these parameters were observed on study days 7 and 14. Additionally, no treatment-related neuropathological findings (brain weight changes, neurohistopathological findings) were observed. Therefore, the affected parameters indicated a neuropharmacological effect rather than neuronal damage. Based on the results of this study the NOAEL for acute neurotoxicity was 125 mg/kg bw/d in male and female rats.

There was no indication of clinical (general clinical observation, FOB and motor activity) or neurohistopathological neurotoxicity in a subchronic neurotoxicity study. Systemic signs of toxicity were consistent with those seen in repeated dose studies with fluxapyroxad. Under the conditions of the present study the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for neurotoxicity was 5000 ppm (approximately 320 mg/kg bw/d), the highest dose tested.]

	5. Chronic toxicity. [Systemic toxicity in long term oral exposure studies in dogs, mice and rats included effects on food consumption, body weight development and clinical chemistry changes. The liver was identified as the main target organ in all species tested, as indicated by liver weight changes and non-neoplastic lesions. Additional target organs in the rat included the thyroid and bones. The spleen, gall bladder and prostate were affected in dogs.

for 2 years in rats resulted in the induction of hepatocellular tumors in males at dose levels ≥ 250 ppm and in females at ≥ 1500 ppm. A mitogenic, Phenobarbital-like mechanism is proposed as the probable mode of action for liver tumor development in rats. This was supported by mechanistic studies on enzyme induction and S-Phase response in the liver, and indicates there is a threshold for tumor development and a margin of exposure cancer risk assessment is appropriate.

In the rat chronic/oncogenicity study, the NOAEL in males and females was 50 ppm (2.1 and 2.7 mg/kg bw/day, respectively). NOAEL’s in the mouse oncogenicity study were 150 ppm in males (21 mg/kg bw/day) and in females (33 mg/kg bw/day).  In a chronic dog study, the NOAEL was 300 ppm (approximately 8 mg/kg bw/day).]

	6. Animal metabolism. [The rat, goat and hen metabolism studies were conducted to determine the nature of the fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) residues in animals. Studies were conducted with radiolabeled fluxapyroxad with 14-C labels positioned in aniline and pyrazole ring structures (hen metabolism, aniline ring label only). BAS 700 F was either excreted rapidly in urine and feces or transformed to a number of metabolites after administration to animals. All relevant metabolites were identified. Unchanged parent compound was found as the predominant component in most animal matrices. The metabolism of fluxapyroxad in the animals is well understood. Degradation proceeds via N-demethylation of the pyrazole ring and/or hyroxylation of the biphenyl ring followed by subsequent O- and N-conjugation reactions to produce metabolites that are rapidly excreted, along with parent, and do not readily accumulate in tissues or milk. Residues in milk and most edible tissues are low. The same metabolic reactions were observed in each of the animals studied, so there is a consistent metabolic pathway for fluxapyroxad in animals.  Rat, goat and hen metabolism studies were also conducted with radiolabeled M700F048, a N-glucoside of N-desmethyl BAS 700F, a plant metabolite, seen at levels >10 TRR in soybean seed in the plant metabolism study.  In all animals, the glucoside was readily hydrolyzed to generate M700F008, a key intermediate in the metabolism of fluxapyroxad in animals. The radiolabeled residue was rapidly excreted with little uptake in tissue, following a metabolic pathway in all animals like that for fluxapyroxad.  Rat, goat and hen metabolism studies were also conducted with radiolabeled M700F002, a carboxylic acid attached to the pyrazole-ring formed by cleavage of the fluxapyroxad carboxamide bond.  M700F002 was seen at levels >10 TRR in soybean seed in the plant metabolism and was present only at low levels in the rat urine. In lieu of a fish metabolism study, a justification was submitted to waive the data requirement for a metabolism study in fish. The justification was based on the relatively low BCF of 25 in edible tissues of bluegill sunfish and the negligible BCF of <1 in the crayfish field accumulation study. This was sufficient information to fulfill the requirements for the use in rice, including in paddy rice, an aquatic system. BASF does not believe that an additional metabolism study in a bottom feeder (catfish) or predator (bass) fish will provide any new information that would add value to the existing Fluxapyroxad data package.  In all animal studies, M700F002 was not metabolized and was almost completely and rapidly excreted unchanged, with no uptake in tissue.]

	7. Metabolite toxicology. [The metabolism of fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) is similar in plants and mammals.  The metabolism of fluxapyroxad, both in plants and animals, is largely based on two key transformation reactions, N-demethylation of the pyrazole moiety and hydroxylation of the biphenyl moiety.  Both reactions, combinations thereof, and subsequent conjugation reactions (e.g. glucose, glucuronic acid, cysteine) result in a range of common and structurally related compounds.  Due to the similar structural nature of most metabolites, the toxicity of most plant metabolites is adequately estimated from the results of studies performed with fluxapyroxad in animals. In addition, the metabolism of metabolites M700F002, and M700F048 were each investigated in rat, goat and hen. Animal metabolism studies were performed with M700F002 since the plant metabolite was seen in the rat metabolism only at low levels in urine. In rat, goat and hen, M700F002 is rapidly and almost completely excreted unchanged with almost no uptake in tissue, milk or eggs.  M700F002 is not metabolized in animal to any significant extent.

Animal metabolism studies were performed with M700F048, a glucoside conjugate since the plant metabolite would not be formed in animal metabolism. In animal metabolism studies, M700F048 was rapidly hydrolyzed to metabolite M700F008, a key metabolite in the metabolic pathway of fluxapyroxad. Unchanged M700F048 was not detected in edible animal commodities.

Toxicology studies (Acute oral toxicity, Ames test, in vitro mutagenicity test in mammalian cells, in vitro chromosome aberration test, in vivo mouse micronucleus, 28/90-day rat feeding and developmental toxicity in rabbits) were conducted on three metabolites. Overall, M700F001, M700F002 and M700F048 are of low acute and subchronic toxicity in rats. The metabolites showed no genotoxic potential in a battery of genotoxicity studies. In addition, no adverse effects were observed up to the highest doses tested in developmental toxicity study with rabbits.]

	8. Endocrine disruption. [No specific tests have been conducted with fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) to determine whether the chemical may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen or other endocrine effects.  However, there were no significant findings in other relevant toxicity studies (e.g., sub-chronic and chronic toxicity, developmental toxicity and multi-generation reproductive studies) which would suggest that fluxapyroxad produces any endocrine disruption.]

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. [The tolerance expression for dietary risk assessment is fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) and M700F008 in plant and animal commodities except milk, for which M700F010 is also included.  Exposure assessments were conducted to evaluate the potential risk due to acute and chronic dietary exposure of the U.S. population and all sub-populations. The assessments included uses for all current established tolerances (40 CFR 180.666), the pending increased tolerance for foliar treatment of cotton, the pending tolerances in citrus, oil,  fruit, citrus, group 10-10,  and poultry fat, the pending increased tolerance for egg  and the proposed uses in banana, mango, papaya and coffee. The acute and chronic dietary exposure estimates were conducted using DEEM, version 4.02 which includes the consumption data from the NHANES 2-day food consumption data for 2005 to 2010.]

	i. Food. [Acute Dietary Exposure Assessment

For plant commodities, the residue levels were set as follows: (a) for crops approved as of May 14, 2012, tolerance values adjusted with a factor of 1.5  to account for metabolite M700F008 were used as was done in the acute dietary assessment conducted as part of the evaluation by EPA (a few input values were changed as discussed below);  (b) for crops approved as of February 26, 2014, tolerance values plus the HAFT for any level of M700F008 greater than the LOQ were used  (this is different from the EPA analysis performed in July 3013) c) for the proposed foliar use in cotton (submitted in January 2014) and the proposed use in citrus (submitted in January 2015), tolerance values plus the HAFT for any level of M700F008 greater than the LOQ were used. A 1.5 factor was not used to adjust the tolerances for the commodities evaluated in 2013 or for the new commodities used in the assessment since the levels of metabolite M700F008 were generally much less than 50% of the tolerance.  The values changed from the EPA dietary analysis of February 2012 are soybean seed commodities changed from 0.75 mg/kg to 0.15 mg/kg, sweet corn changed from 0.015 to 0.15 mg/kg and rice commodities to reflect the proposed rice use. For the newly proposed import tolerances in banana, coffee, mango and papaya, the MRL was used with no adjustment for metabolite since the level of M700F008 was generally less than the limit of detection of 0.002 ppm.

EPA default processing factors were applied to dried banana and papaya, and the default processing factor for dried papaya was applied to dried mango. Study derived processing factors were used for citrus, coffee, cottonseed, grape, peanut, rice, brown, rice flour, rice, white and sugarcane process commodities. The analysis assumed 100% of all crops were treated.  The residue levels used for ruminant and poultry commodities were derived by extrapolation from residue levels of parent and M700F008 measured in the feeding studies based on the feed burdens calculated in the January 2015 submission. The metabolite M700F010 was considered to be equal to fluxapyroxad levels in milk. The tolerances of 0.01 mg/kg were used for freshwater finfish, shellfish, crustacean and hog, meat, byproducts.

The total exposure estimates are lower than those in the EPA evaluation of July 25, 2013 since for commodities registered in 2014 and for newly proposed commodities, the calculation of the total residue is based on tolerance plus the actual measured HAFT for M700F008 levels rather than the tolerance multiplied by a factor, such as 1.5, to set the metabolite levels in plant commodities.

For drinking water all fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) uses were examined at maximum use rates, maximum number of applications, and all proposed application methods to determine which use would result in the highest water concentrations.  The highest acute Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWC) was estimated to be 203 µg/L (ppb) for use in turf.   The drinking water exposure was included in the dietary analysis in Table 1.

The resulting exposure estimates were compared against the fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) acute Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD) of 1.25 mg/kg b.w./day for all populations. The endpoint is based on the NOAEL of 1.25 mg/kg/day with an FQPA safety factor of 1.  The most highly exposed sub-population was children 1-2 years old with 10.8 % utilization of the aPAD. The results of the acute dietary assessment are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Results for fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) Acute Dietary Exposure (Food and Water) Considering all Current and Proposed Tolerances using DEEM-FCID (v. 4.02) at the 95th Percentile

Population	Exposure Estimate	% aPAD

Subgroups	(mg/kg b.w./day)

	U.S. Population	0.074905	6.0

All Infants (< 1 year old)	0.111265	8.9

Children (1-2 years old)	0.135601	10.8

Children (3-5 years old)	0.112723	9.0

Children (6-12 years old)	0.070500	5.6

Youth (13-19 years old)	0.056323	4.5

Adults (20-49 years old)	0.068608	5.5

Adults (50+ years old)	0.069467	5.6

Females (13-49 years old)	0.070819	5.7

The results of the analysis show that for all populations, the estimated exposures are well below the Agency's level of concern (< 100% aPAD). Additional refinements in the dietary risk assessment (i.e. utilizing anticipated residue values, percent crop treated values) would further reduce the estimated exposure values.

Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment

For plant commodities, the residue levels were set as follows: (a) for crops approved as of May 14, 2012, the combined highest average field trial values for parent plus metabolite M700F008 were used as was done in the acute dietary assessment conducted as part of the February 2012 evaluation by EPA (a few input values were changed as discussed below);  (b) for crops approved as of February 26, 2014 and the pending use in foliar treatment in cotton and citrus, the  field trial average residue values for parent plus the HAFT for the metabolite M700F008 (when greater than the LOQ) were used, similar to the EPA evaluation performed in July 3013. For banana the average field residue measured for banana pulp for treated unbagged banana was used. For the newly proposed import tolerances in coffee, mango and papaya, the field trial average residue value was used. The metabolite M700F008 levels were <LOD and were not considered.  Processing factors including DEEM default and empirical processing factors used in the dietary assessment conducted as part of the evaluation by EPA in February 2012 were included. EPA default processing factors were applied to dried banana and papaya, and the default processing factor for dried papaya was applied to dried mango Study derived processing factors were used for citrus, coffee, cottonseed, grape, peanut, rice and sugarcane process commodities. The analysis assumed 100% of all crops were treated.  The residue levels used for ruminant and poultry commodities were those used in the submission of January 2015 and were derived by extrapolation from residue levels of parent and M700F008 measured in the feeding studies based on the calculated feed burdens (January 2015 submission). The metabolite M700F010 was considered to be equal to fluxapyroxad levels in milk. The tolerances of 0.01 mg/kg were used for freshwater finfish, shellfish, crustacean and hog, meat, byproducts.

For drinking water all fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) uses were examined at maximum use rates, maximum number of applications, and all proposed application methods to determine which use would result in the highest water concentrations.  The highest chronic Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWC) was estimated to be 184 µg/L (ppb).   The drinking water exposure was included in the dietary analysis in Table 2.

The chronic Population Adjusted Dose (cPAD) used for U.S. population and all sub-populations is 0.021 mg/kg bw/day. This endpoint is based on the NOAEL value of 2.1 mg/kg bw/day using a FQPA safety factor of 1.  The most highly exposed population sub-group was all infants (< 1 year old) which utilized 89.8% cPAD.  The results of the chronic dietary assessment are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.  Results for fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) Chronic Dietary Exposure (Food and Water) Considering All  Commodities using DEEM-FCID

Population	Exposure Estimate	% cPAD

Subgroups	(mg/kg b.w./day)

	U.S. Population	0.007111	33.9

All Infants (< 1 year old)	0.018859	89.8

Children (1-2 years old)	0.015045	71.6

Children (3-5 years old)	0.011638	55.4

Children (6-12 years old)	0.007308	34.8

Youth (13-19 years old)	0.005012	23.9

Adults (20-49 years old)	0.006492	30.9

Adults (50+ years old)	0.006648	31.7

Females (13-49 years old)	0.006446	30.7

The results of the risk assessment show that for all populations the exposures are below a level of concern (< 100% cPAD).  Additional refinements in the dietary risk assessment (i.e. utilizing anticipated residue values, percent crop treated values) would further reduce the estimated exposure values.]

	ii. Drinking water. [The consumption of fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) residues in drinking water was included in the dietary assessments above. For drinking water all fluxapyroxad uses were examined at maximum use rates, maximum number of applications, and all proposed application methods to determine which use would result in the highest water concentrations. .  The highest acute Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWC) was estimated to be 203 µg/L (ppb).  The     highest chronic EDWC’s for fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) were estimated to be 184 µg/L (ppb).

Short- and Intermediate-Term Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food, water, and residential)

Short- and intermediate-term aggregate risk assessments include exposure from food, water, and residential uses.  Fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) is registered for use on residential turf.  The residential uses of Fluxapyroxad will result is short-term exposure.  The residential uses will not result in intermediate and therefore, an intermediate-term aggregate risk assessment is not required.  Because no dermal hazard of concern was identified for fluxapyroxad only inhalation exposure was assessed for residential handlers, and incidental oral exposure (hand to mouth) was assessed for activities of children on treated turf.

The short-term oral NOAEL is 9.0 mg/kg bw/day.  The short-term aggregate risk assessment is presented in Table 3.

 Table 3:  Short-Term Aggregate Exposure and Risk for fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F)

Sub-Populations	Short-term Aggregate

 	Food + water exp. (mg/kg bw/day)	Residential exp (mg/kg bw/day)	Total exp (mg/kg bw/day)	Aggregate MOE

US Population	0.007111	0.022000	0.029111	309

Children 1-2 years old	0.015045	0.003500	0.018545	485

The aggregate MOEs for dietary (food + water) and residential exposures are 489 for children and 309 for adults.  These MOE values indicate that aggregate risk from the use of BAS 700 F is not a concern.]  .

	2. Non-dietary exposure.

[A residential exposure and risk assessment was conducted for the proposed residential use of fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) products for disease control in turf. Because no dermal hazard of concern was identified for fluxapyroxad, only inhalation exposure was assessed for residential handlers, and incidental ingestion was assessed for activities of children on treated turf. In all exposure scenarios, the MOEs for residential use of fluxapyroxad were well above EPA’s level of concern (MOE < 100) indicating that these exposures are not of concern.]

D. Cumulative Effects ["Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) 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." Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F). For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, BASF has not assumed that fluxapyroxad has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.]

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. [Based on this risk assessment, BASF concludes that the aggregate exposure to fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) from the current tolerances and proposed new tolerances does not result in an unacceptable risk.]

	2. Infants and children. [Based on this risk assessment, BASF concludes that the aggregate exposure to fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) from the current tolerances and proposed new tolerances does not result in an unacceptable risk.]

F. International Tolerances

	[European Maximum Residue Limits (MRL) were established for fluxapyroxad on multiple crops in October 2011 [Commission Regulation (EU) No 978/2011 of 3 October 2011; MRLs for fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) in various commodities of plant and animal origin. EFSA Journal 2011; 9(6):2196 [68 pp.]

Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) has published Maximum Residue Limits (MRL) for fluxapyroxad residues on multiple crop commodities. A complete list can be found on the Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides webpage in the Pesticides and Pest Management section of Health Canada’s website.

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) established an MRL of 0.1 ppm on barley and all other crops grown in Australia. The Food Standards Australia New Zealand also proposed an MRL of 2 mg/kg (ppm) on stone fruits [except plums (including prunes)] for the purpose of harmonizing MRLs with the U.S.

CODEX maximum residue levels were proposed for residues of fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) in/on raw agricultural commodities and processed fractions by the 2012 Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) and approved by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) in May 2013 (Summary Report from the 2012 Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR), Oct 2012).

Summary of International MRLs (ppm) as of December, 2014

Some commodities might not be covered due to differences in crop groups and extrapolations.

B*

B*

B*

?

@

Ë

Ì

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

-Ì

Õ

Ù

ä

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

-

B*

B*

B*

h

h

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

#

$

%

&

+

,

-

0

1

4

5

6

9

:

;

?

@

F

G

H

K

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

h

K

L

O

P

Q

T

V

X

‹

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

h

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

摧懐OЀ1摧尼ùЀ1摧宖aЀ1摧畨ÇЀ1摧㹲

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

h×!

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

h×!

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

h1

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

h

B*

B*

B*

B*

éÿ+

y €&B

h×!

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

éÿ+

y €&B

愀Ĥ摧⇗

B*

B*

B*

B*

h×!

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

h

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

Ff

Watermelon	0.5	---	{0.01}	{0.1}	---	---	---	{0.1}

Wheat, grain	0.3	0.3	0.4	{0.1}	0.5	0.3	0.3	0.3

Yam, true, tuber	0.02	---	{0.01}	0.1	---	0.02	0.02

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 160 (Monday, August 19, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50323-50324]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20016]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0272; Airspace Docket No. 13-ASW-10]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Lexington, OK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace at Muldrow Army Heliport,
Lexington, OK. Changes to military mission requirements require
conversion of the Class E surface area to a Class E transition area.
This action enhances the safety and management of Instrument Flight
Rule (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, December 12, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On June 3, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace at Muldrow Army
Heliport, Lexington, OK (78 FR 33017) Docket No. FAA-2013-0272.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraphs 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9W dated
August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed
in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by amending Class E airspace at Muldrow Army Heliport,
Lexington, OK, removing the Class E surface area and creating Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-
mile radius of the heliport. This change supports low altitude military
helicopter operations and ensures that standard instrument approaches
are conducted within controlled airspace for the safety and management
of IFR operations at the heliport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Muldrow Army Heliport, Lexington,
OK.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

ASW OK E2 Lexington, OK [Removed]

* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth.

ASW OK E5 Lexington, OK [New]

Muldrow Army Heliport, OK
    (Lat. 35[deg]01[min]35[sec] N., long. 97[deg]13[min]54[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.8-mile radius of Muldrow Army Heliport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 2, 2013.
David P. Medina,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-20016 Filed 8-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1                                INFORMATION
COLLECTION REQUEST (ICR)

                             United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)

			         Part A of the Supporting Statement

					( June 2007 )

IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a) 	Title: 	Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Gasoline
Volatility; Reporting Requirements for Parties Which Produce or Import
Gasoline Containing Ethanol, and Reporting Requirements for Parties
Seeking a Testing Exemption (40 CFR 80.27)

			EPA ICR Number 1367.08, OMB Control Number 2060-0178

	1(b) Abstract

	Gasoline volatility, as measured by Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) in pounds
per square inch (psi), is controlled in the spring and summer in order
to minimize evaporative hydrocarbon emissions from motor vehicles.  The
standards, 7.8 psi or 9.0 psi, for each state and the District of
Columbia, are at 40 CFR 80.27 (a).  The addition of ethanol to gasoline
increases the RVP by about one psi.  Gasoline that contains at least
nine volume percent ethanol is subject to a standard that is 1.0 psi
greater.  As an aid to compliance and enforcement, the regulation at 40
CFR 80.27 (d)(3) requires that the product transfer document (PTD) which
accompanies a shipment of gasoline containing ethanol shall contain a
legible and conspicuous statement that the gasoline contains ethanol and
the percentage concentration of ethanol.  This is intended to deter the
mixing within the distribution system, particularly in retail storage
tanks, of gasoline which contains ethanol with gasoline that does not
contain ethanol.  Such mixing would likely result in a gasoline with an
ethanol concentration of less than nine volume percent, but with an RVP
above the standard.  It is estimated that there are approximately 2,000
producers and importers (mostly blenders as opposed to refiners and
importers) of gasoline blended with ethanol.  There are approximately
10,000 shippers/distributors/transferors, mostly truckers, of gasoline
containing ethanol.  It is estimated that each transferor handles about
300 shipments annually.  Parties wishing to conduct research or
emissions certification on gasoline that does not meet the volatility
standard are required to obtain a testing exemption in accordance with
40 CFR 80.27(e).  The EPA receives approximately two requests per year
for testing exemptions.

NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

	2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

	Section 211(h) of the Clean Air Act (Act) requires EPA to promulgate
regulations prohibiting the sale or distribution of gasoline whose
volatility, as measured by RVP, exceeds certain standards during the
high ozone season.  The Act and regulations at 40 C.F.R. 80.27 and 80.28
permit gasoline containing nine percent ethanol to have an RVP that is
one psi greater than the standard that would otherwise apply.  Normally,
the gasoline distribution system treats gasoline as a fungible product.
That is, gasolines from numerous sources are mixed together (also known
as commingling) in tanks at terminals and retail outlets.  Therefore,
without the required statement on the PTD, gasoline containing ethanol
could easily be commingled with gasoline not containing ethanol.  This
could result in gasoline containing enough ethanol to cause a violation
of the RVP standard, but not at least nine percent ethanol to qualify
for the one psi exemption allowed by the Act and regulations.  Thus, it
is imperative that gasoline marketers, shippers, and distributors know
if a shipment of gasoline contains ethanol, and in what concentration.
The required statement on the PTD of gasoline blended with ethanol will
significantly aid industry compliance and EPA’s ability to enforce the
volatility standards.

	Thus, the rule requires that the customary business practice (CBP) PTD
for a shipment of gasoline containing ethanol state that the gasoline
contains ethanol and the percentage concentration of ethanol.  The rule
does not have a recordkeeping requirement.  However, PTDs are usually
retained in the normal course of business for five years.

	As required by section 211(h) of the Act, the Agency promulgated a
final rule in 1991.  The reporting requirement in 40 C.F.R. 80.27(d)(3)
was promulgated under authority of section 211(h) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 7545(h) and sections 114 and 208 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7414 and
7542, and provides:

"Each invoice, loading ticket, bill of lading, delivery ticket and other
document which accompanies the shipment of gasoline containing ethanol
shall contain a legible and conspicuous statement that the gasoline
being shipped contains ethanol and the percentage concentration of
ethanol."

	These regulations provide for the enforcement of the standards for the
maximum RVP that will be allowed during the high ozone portion of the
year, extending from May 1 (suppliers) or June 1 (all other persons)
through September 15.  Regulatory control of volatility stems from a
recognition of the major impact that increases in the RVP of gasoline
have on the emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs).  Consequent
to the excessive emission of VOCs is the formation of ozone in the
ambient air, a major summertime health problem in many urban areas.

     The reporting (actually labeling) requirement is necessary because
the Act gave ethanol blends a one pound per square inch (psi) allowance
above the otherwise applicable RVP standard.  The records regarding the
shipment of ethanol blends to a retailer or to any "midstream"
distribution point will assist Agency enforcement officials, when
inspecting those shipments, in identifying those gasoline blends that
qualify for the one psi allowance and those parties who may be liable
for violations if the blend does not qualify for the allowance.  The
records are also necessary to assist regulated parties in avoiding
violations (for example, mixing loads of gasoline with ten percent
ethanol and loads without ethanol during the high ozone season can
result in violations), and can be used by parties in establishing a
legal defense.

	Parties wishing to conduct research or emissions certification on
gasoline that does not meet the volatility standard may obtain a testing
exemption by providing the information specified at 40 CFR 80.27(e) to
EPA.  Thus, if a test facility was inspected by EPA, and gasoline was
found that did not meet the standard, and the facility had an exemption,
there would not be a violation.

     2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

	The collection of information is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the Agency and has practical utility.  The
information contained in the PTDs for gasoline blended with ethanol is
used to identify those gasoline blends that may qualify for the one psi
allowance, as provided by the Act and by the rule.  The required record
also helps prevent the commingling of gasoline containing the required
amount of ethanol necessary to be eligible for the one psi waiver with
gasoline not containing ethanol.  Such commingling would usually result
in a violation.  The testing exemption provides flexibility for research
or emissions certification.

	The Agency enforcement officers need this information to identify
violations and to identify violating parties.  There is no recordkeeping
requirement under this rule.  Industry entities, including blenders of
ethanol and gasoline, and distributors of gasoline containing ethanol,
as well as retailers (who ultimately receive the gasoline but have no
recordkeeping requirements under the rule) need the information in order
to prevent violations that can occur from commingling ethanol blends and
non-ethanol blends during the high ozone season.

3.  NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

	3(a) Nonduplication

	The information collection is not duplicative.  The PTDs are the only
records available to recipients of gasoline that document that ethanol
has been blended into the gasoline.  The reporting requirement for a
testing exemption is the only practical approach.

	3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

	In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, there is a public
comment period of 60 days.

	3(c) Consultations

	The general consensus is that the burden is very small.  The
information is generally computer-generated, pre-printed, or hand
stamped on the PTDs.  The rule does not require that the PTDs be
retained.  Only about two requests for testing exemptions are received
annually.

	3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	This labeling activity is the minimum necessary to alert downstream
distributors/marketers that a shipment of gasoline contains ethanol.
The labeling requirement applies only to those producing or importing
gasoline blended with ethanol.  The Agency allows maximum flexibility in
the form of the labeling.  Neither record maintenance nor reporting to
the Agency is required.  No new documents are required, since PTDs are
routinely used in the gasoline distribution network.  Testing exemptions
are requested only as necessary.

	3(e) General Guidelines

	The collection is in compliance with OMB guidelines.  To the extent
that some affected companies may be relatively small businesses, their
informational requirements do not change since the requirement is
already the minimal possible in order to give other businesses and EPA
information that is necessary for compliance.

	3(f) Confidentiality

	Information claimed as confidential is handled in accordance with EPA
Freedom of Information Act regulations at 40 CFR 2.

	3(g) Sensitive Questions

       	There are no sensitive questions.

4.  THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

    	 4(a) Respondents/SIC/NAICS Codes

	The respondents are related to the following major group Standard
Industrialization Classification (SIC) codes:

2869 - Denatured Alcohol Manufacturing

2911 - Petroleum Refineries

4212 - Gasoline Distributors

5171 - Gasoline Bulk Stations and Terminals

5172 - Gasoline Merchant Wholesalers (except bulk stations, terminals)

5541 - Retailers/Wholesale Purchaser-consumers

	The respondents are related to the following major group NAICS codes:

324110 - Petroleum Refineries

325193 - Denatured Alcohol Manufacturing

424710 - Gasoline Bulk Stations and Terminals

424720 - Gasoline Merchant Wholesalers (except bulk stations, terminals)

	4(b) Information Requested

	(i)  Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements

	This ICR covers the reporting/labeling requirement at 40 CFR
80.27(d)(3) for the PTDs for shipments of gasoline containing ethanol.
Ethanol is generally splash-blended into a gasoline tanker truck at a
terminal truck rack at ten volume percent.  The blender creates a
statement on the PTD that the product contains ten percent ethanol.  The
same is required for a refiner who produces gasoline blended with
ethanol at a refinery and an importer of gasoline blended with ethanol.
Each distributor/transferor transfers this PTD on to the next transferor
and ultimately to the retail level.  Many refiners/blenders/importers
already included this information on the PTDs prior to the EPA
regulatory requirement (also, some states already required this
information), and for them this requirement represented no new burden.
Even where it did represent a new burden, the information is now encoded
automatically by computer or otherwise routinely stamped or entered on
the PTD, resulting in an extremely small reporting burden.  There is no
burden for transferors, as they already had to transfer a PTD with each
shipment of gasoline as a customary business practice (CBP).  This rule
has no recordkeeping requirement.  Parties needing a testing exemption
must submit the information specified at 40 CFR 80.27(e).

	(ii)  Respondent Activities

	The following are required:

Read and comprehend the regulations.

Train personnel to meet the requirements.

Develop the information for the PTD and/or testing exemption.

Gather and organize the information.

Review the information, perform quality assurance, and take corrective
action, if necessary, to meet the regulatory requirements.

Enter the information onto the PTD or submit the request for a testing
exemption to EPA.

5.         THE INFORMATION COLLECTED--AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION

    	METHODOLOGY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

	5(a) Agency Activities

	The following are required:

Develop a thorough understanding of the regulatory requirements.

Convey the requirements and respond to inquiries in a clear manner.

Provide access to the regulations and guidance documents.

Timely process requests for testing exemptions.

Monitor compliance with the PTD requirement.

	5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

	The information collection, to the maximum extent practicable, uses
appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data
quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public.  Ethanol
blender/distributors generally use computer-printed language stating
that the product contains ten percent ethanol.  This information is
printed on PTDs, and in many cases the information itself was already
printed prior to the rule.  EPA also allows the use of coded statements
to reduce the space the statement requires on the PTD.  EPA may examine
these records during investigations regarding gasoline exceeding the
applicable RVP standard.  Requests for a testing exemption are routinely
reviewed and granted by EPA.

	5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

	The information collection reduces to the extent practicable and
appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or
for the Agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined by
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. § 601(6)), the use of such
techniques as: (1) establishing differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources
available to those who are to respond; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting
requirements; or (3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of
information, or any part thereof.

	The approach of this information collection holds burdens to the
irreducible minimum consistent with obtaining the required compliance
levels.  The labeling requirement applies only to those entities that
produce or import ethanol blends.  It enables those parties, as well as
retail level entities, to comply with the law.  However, retail entities
have no requirement to make or maintain records.  Therefore, the
smallest entities have no burden under this collection and for those
small distributors who do have a burden, the burden is minimal.  The
information required is not in any prescribed format, allowing for
maximum flexibility in how to print the information, including the use
of short codes, and does not necessitate any new records.  Therefore, no
further flexibility is needed.

	5(d) Collection Schedule

     There is no reporting requirement and there is no required
maintenance period.  There is no collection schedule; the statement is
added to CBP transfer documents when the blend is produced or imported.

6.   ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

	It is estimated that there are 2,000 producers and importers of
gasoline blended with ethanol.  The vast majority is blended at
terminals.  Some ethanol is blended at a refinery or contained in
imported gasoline

            Based on information received from respondents and from EPA
experience, for most respondents the required information is
automatically computer-generated or preprinted on the PTDs.  This means
the reporting requirement is almost immeasurable for these parties.
Other parties may spend about ten seconds per transaction to stamp or
otherwise enter the information on the PTDs.  The average for all
respondents is estimated to be about five seconds per transaction.
There is no recordkeeping requirement.  It is estimated to take four
hours to prepare a request for a testing exemption.

	Based on data from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, (2005 data),  EPA estimates that the hourly cost, including
benefits and other employee costs, for this industry and for the period
of this ICR, to be about $65 per hour for a typical labor mix.

	Almost all gasoline containing ethanol will be shipped by truck.
Assume 60 percent of all gasoline contains ethanol.  If 60 percent of
the 140 billion gallons of gasoline that is consumed annually nationwide
contains ethanol, this comes to 84 billion gallons of gasoline.  If each
truck carries 8,500 gallons of gasoline, then about 10 million
truckloads/shipments of gasoline with ethanol are produced/imported
annually.  Thus 10 million PTDs will receive the required statement on
ethanol content annually.

	6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

	For 10 million PTDs (responses), at and average burden of 5 seconds per
PTD, the annual burden is 13,889 hours, or about seven hours for each of
the estimated 2,000 producers and importers.  There is an additional
hour of labor for each of the estimated 100 new producers or importers
annually to implement the requirement, for a net annual burden for
producers and importers of 13,889+100= 13,989 hours.  The two requests
for testing exemptions, at 4 hours each, add 8 hours annually, for an
annual total of 10,000,002 responses and 13,989+8= 13,997 hours.  There
is no burden for the estimated 10,000 transferors because the
transmittal of PTDs is a customary business practice.

	6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

	For producers and importers of gasoline containing ethanol, 13,997
hours at $65 per hour gives a total of $909,805, or about $455 per
respondent (2,000 respondents) annually to generate the required
statement on PTDs.  For the estimated 100 new producers or importers
each year, there is an additional hour of labor for each, $65 per
respondent, to implement the requirement, for a total of $6,500.  Thus,
the total annual cost for producers and importers is
$909,805+$6,500=$916,305.  For parties wishing a testing exemption, 8
hours at $65 per hour gives a total of $520, or $260 per respondent.
There are no costs for the 10,000 transferors.

	There are no Purchased Services Costs.  There are no Annualized Startup
Costs.  There are no Annualized Capital Costs.  Thus, the only non-labor
costs are Operating and Maintenance (O&M) costs are for copying and
postage for the two exemption requests annually, and are estimated at
$10 each for a total of $20.

	6(c) Estimating EPA Burden and Cost

     	The labeling activity that is the subject of this ICR imposes no
burden or costs on the

Agency.  The Agency would conduct inspections even without the
requirement but the required information facilitates the investigation
of possible violations.

	6(d) Reasons for Change of Burden

	The use of ethanol in gasoline has increased since the previous ICR.
Thus, the annual number of respondents is estimated to have increased
from 1,500 in the previous ICR to 2,000, and the annual number of PTDs
that will contain the required language has increased from 4,600,00 in
the previous ICR to 10 milliion.

	6(e) Burden Statement

	There are no EPA forms on which to place a statement.

B.  COLLECTION OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS

	This section is not applicable because statistical methods are not used
in the data collection associated with the Gasoline Volatility Rule.

6-13-07   1:10p

  PAGE   8


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 60428]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24358]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13485-001]

FFP Project 75 LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On September 4, 2012, FFP Project 75, LLC filed an application for
a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of a hydropower project
located on the Mississippi River, near Wabash, in Phillips County,
Arkansas and Coahoma County, Mississippi. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed Old Town Bend hydrokinetic project would consist of
the following: (1) Up to 1,090 SmarTurbine generating units installed
in arrays on the bottom of the river; (2) the total capacity of the
installation would be up to 43,600 kilowatts; (3) flexible cables would
convey each arrays power to a metering station; and (4) a transmission
line would interconnect with the power grid. The proposed project would
have an average annual generation of 99,156,000 kilowatt-hours, which
would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Free Flow Power Corporation,
239 Causeway Street, Boston, MA 02114; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13485) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: September 27, 2012.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-24358 Filed 10-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P