[Federal Register: November 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 220)]
[Notices]
[Page 64200-64201]
[DOCID:fr15no07-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC08-550-000, FERC-550]

Commission Information Collection Activities, Proposed
Collection; Comment Request; Extension

November 6, 2007.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Information Collection and Request for
Comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of Section3506(c)(2)(a) of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is soliciting public comment
on the specific aspects of the information collection described below.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by January 11,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Copies of sample filings of the proposed information
collection can be obtained from the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filings/elibrary.asp
) or from the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, Attn: Michael Miller, Office of the Executive
Director, ED-34, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments
may be filed electronically or in paper format. Those parties filing
electronically do not need to make a paper filing. For paper filings,
the original and 14 copies of such comment should be submitted to the
Secretary of the Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 and refer to Docket No. IC08-
550-000.
    Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared
in, MS Word, Portable Document Format, Word Perfect or ASCII format. To
file the document, access the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov and

click on ``Make an E-filing,'' and then follow the instructions for
each screen. First time users will have to establish a user name and
password. The Commission will send an automatic acknowledgment to the
sender's e-mail address upon receipt of comments.
    All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the
Internet through FERC's homepage using the eLibrary link. For user
assistance, contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at (866)
208-3676 or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information collected under the
requirements of FERC-550 ``Oil Pipeline Rates: Tariff Filings'' (OMB
No. 1902-0089) is used by the Commission to implement the statutory
provisions of Part 1, 6 and 15 of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA)
(Pub. L. 337, 34 Stat. 584). Jurisdiction over oil pipelines as it
relates to the establishment of valuations for pipelines was
transferred from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to FERC,
pursuant to sections 306 and 402 of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (DOE Act), 42 U.S.C. 7155 and 7172 and Executive Order
No. 12009, 42 FR 46267 (September 17, 1977).
    The filing requirements for proposed oil pipeline rates are
specified in 18 CFR 341-348. The data that oil pipelines file is the
basis for Commission analyses of the amounts they plan to charge to
transport crude oil and petroleum products. The Commission uses its
analyses to (1) determine if the proposed charges result in just and
reasonable rates for the oil pipeline's transportation services and (2)
help the Commission decide whether it should suspend, accept or reject
the proposed rates.
    Action: The Commission is now requesting a three-year extension of
the current expiration date, with no changes to the existing
collection. The information filed with the Commission is mandatory.
    Burden Statement: Public Reporting Burden for this information
collection is estimated as:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of        Average burden
             Number of respondents annually                responses per        hours per         Total annual
                                                             respondent          response         burden hours
(1)                                                                    (2)                (3)                (4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
200....................................................                  3                 11              6,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6,600 hours/2080 hours\1\ x $124,384\2\ equals $401,026. The cost of
filing FERC-550 per respondent is $2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Number of hours an employee works in a year.
    \2\ Average annual salary per employee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide
the information including:
    (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing, acquiring, installing,
and using technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing and
providing information; (3) adjusting existing ways to comply with an
previously applicable filing instructions and requirements; (4)
training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5)
searching data sources; (6) competing and reviewing the collection of
information; and (7) transmitting or otherwise disclosing the
information.
    The cost estimate for respondents is based upon salaries for
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs
apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than
any one particular function or activity.
    Comments are invited on: (1) The accuracy of the Commission's
burden estimate of the proposed information collection, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used to calculate the
reporting burden; (2) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity
of the information to be collected.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-22284 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Table 7.1.1: Short and Intermediate term Baseline Exposures and Risks for Occupational Handlers Exposure Scenario ( Scenario #) Inhalation Unit Exposure ( Ug/ lb ai) 1 Crop2 Application Rate3 Daily Area Treated4 Inhalation Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) 5 Inhalation MOE6 Mixer/ Loader Exposure Scenario ( Scenario #) Inhalation Unit Exposure ( Ug/ lb ai) 1 Crop2 Application Rate3 Daily Area Treated4 Inhalation Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) 5 Inhalation MOE6 Page 55 of 71 Mixing/ Loading Liquids for Aerial application ( 1) 1.2 Berry, Field Crops, Tree ( fruit, nut), Vegetable, Vine 0.47 lb ai per acre 350 Acres per day 0.0028 29000 Mixing/ Loading Liquids for Aerial application ( 1) 1.2 High Acreage Field Crops10 0.47 lb ai per acre 1200 Acres per day 0.0097 8400 Mixing/ Loading Liquids for Groundboom application ( 2) 1.2 Berry, Field Crops, Tree ( fruit, nut), Vegetable, Vine 0.47 lb ai per acre 80 Acres per day 0.00064 130000 Mixing/ Loading Liquids for Groundboom application ( 2) 1.2 High Acreage Field Crops8 0.47 lb ai per acre 200 Acres per day 0.0016 50000 Mixing/ Loading Liquids for Rights of Way Sprayer application ( 3) 1.2 Rights of Way 0.47 lb ai per gallon 1000 Gallons per day 0.0081 10000 Applicator Sprays for Aerial application ( 2) 0.068 Berry, Field Crops, Tree ( fruit, nut), Vegetable, Vine 0.47 lb ai per acre 350 Acres per day 0.00016 510000 Sprays for Aerial application ( 2) 0.068 High Acreage Field Crops8 0.47 lb ai per acre 1200 Acres per day 0.00055 150000 Sprays for Groundboom application ( 3) 0.74 Berry, Field Crops, Tree ( fruit, nut), Vegetable, Vine 0.47 lb ai per acre 80 Acres per day 0.00040 200000 Sprays for Groundboom application ( 3) 0.74 High Acreage Field Crops18 0.47 lb ai per acre 200 Acres per day 0.00099 82000 Sprays for Rights of Way Sprayer application ( 4) 3.9 Rights of Way 0.47 lb ai per gallon 1000 Gallons per day 0.026 3100 Flagger Flagging for Sprays application ( 5) 0.35 Berry, Field Crops, Tree ( fruit, nut), Vegetable, Vine 0.47 lb ai per acre 350 Acres per day 0.00082 98000 Mixer/ Loader/ App Mixing/ Loading/ Applyi ng Liquids for Low Pressure Handwand application ( 6) 30 Misc Crops 0.02 lb ai per gallon 5 Gallons per day 0.000043 1900000 Mixing/ Loading/ Applyi ng Liquids for Backpack sprayer application ( 7) 30 Misc Crops 0.02 lb ai per gallon 5 Gallons per day 0.000043 1900000 Exposure Scenario ( Scenario #) Inhalation Unit Exposure ( Ug/ lb ai) 1 Crop2 Application Rate3 Daily Area Treated4 Inhalation Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) 5 Inhalation MOE6 Page 56 of 71 Mixing/ Loading/ Applyi ng Liquids for High Pressure HandWand application ( 8) 120 Rights of way 0.02 lb ai per gallon 1000 Gallons per day 0.034 2400 Mixing/ Loading/ Applyi ng Liquids for Handgun ( lawn) Sprayer ( ORETF) application ( 9) 1.8 Turf/ Lawn 0.02 lb ai per acre 5 Acres per day 0.0000026 32000000 1Baseline inhalation unit exposures represent no respirator. Values are reported in the PHED Surrogate Exposure Guide dated August 1998 or are from data submitted by the Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force dated May 2000. 2Crops and use patterns are from the labels. 3Application rates are based on maximum values found in various sources including LUIS and various labels. In most scenarios, a range of maximum application rates is used to represent the range of rates for different crops/ sites/ uses. Most application rates upon which the analysis is based are presented as lb ai/ A. In some cases, the application rate is based on applying a solution at concentrations specified by the label ( i. e., presented as lb ai/ gallon). 4Amount treated is based on the area or gallons that can be reasonably applied in a single day for each exposure scenario of concern based on the application method and formulation/ packaging type. ( Standard EPA/ OPP/ HED values). 5Inhalation dose ( mg/ kg/ day) = [ unit exposure ( ug/ lb ai) * 0.001 mg/ g unit conversion * Inhalation absorption ( 100%) * Application rate ( lb ai/ acre or lb ai/ gallon) * Daily area treated ( acres or gallons)] / Body weight ( 70 kg). 6Inhalation MOE = ( 81 mg/ kg/ day) / Daily Inhalation Dose. Target Inhalation MOE is 100. * High Acreage Crops include: Alfalfa, Corn, Cotton, and Soybean 7.2 Short/ Intermediate/ Long Term Postapplication Risk There is a potential for dermal exposure to scouts, harvesters, and other field workers. However, because a dermal endpoint of concern was not identified, and postapplication inhalation exposure is expected to be negligible, an occupational postapplication risk assessment was not conducted. Based upon the acute toxicity of sethoxydim, the current label for Poast ® has a 12 hour restricted entry interval per the Worker Protection Standard ( WPS).

7.3 Incidents Sethoxydim exposure could potentially lead to symptoms in unprotected applicators and other handlers. Of the databases consulted for incident reports relating to sethoxydim exposure, the data collected by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and Poison Control Centers were the only that offered enough documentation to warrant any conclusions about the health effects of sethoxydim. The most common symptoms reported included rash, eye and throat irritation, gastrointestinal symptoms, headache, and dizziness. Two of the more serious cases reported eye problems including visual defect and nonreactive pupils. However, these incident reports only state that sethoxydim was present and the exposure was likely in the presence of pesticides mixtures ( unknown origins).

8.0 DATA NEEDS/ LABEL REQUIREMENTS 8.1 Chemistry Page 57 of 71 ° Two safflower field trials from Region 10 ° Changes to the Poast label:

S Specify the minimum retreatment interval ( RTI) for all crops.

S Add a rotational crop restriction that specifies a 30 day plant back interval ( PBI) for all non registered crops.

8.2 Toxicology None 8.3 Occupational/ Residential None Page 58 of 71 9.0 TOLERANCE RESASSESSMENT Tolerances for residues of sethoxydim in/ on plant and animal commodities are expressed in terms of the combined residues of sethoxydim [ 2[ 1( ethoxyimino) butyl] 5[ 2( ethylthio) propyl] 3 hydroxy 2 cyclohexen 1 one] and its metabolites containing the 2 cyclohexen 1 one moiety, calculated as sethoxydim.

A summary of the sethoxydim tolerance reassessments is presented in Table 9.0.

Tolerances Listed Under 40 CFR § 180.412:

Adequate residue data have been submitted to reassess the established tolerances for sethoxydim in/ on the listed commodities.

TABLE 9.0. Tolerance Summary for Sethoxydim Commodity Established Tolerance ( ppm) Recommended Tolerance ( ppm) Comments ( correct commodity definition)

Alfalfa, Forage 40.0 40 Alfalfa, Hay 40.0 40 Almond, Hulls 2.0 2.0 Apple, Dry Pomace 0.8 0.80 Apple, dried pomace Apple, Wet Pomace 0.8  Revoke: not a significant feedstuff Apricot 0.2 0.20 Artichoke, globe 5.0 5.0 Tolerance with Regional Registration Asparagus 4.0 4.0 Bean, Dry, Seed 20.0 20 Bean, Forage 15.0 15 Cowpea, forage Bean, Hay 50.0 50 Cowpea, hay Bean, Succulent 15.0 15 Beet, Garden 1.0 1.0 Beet, garden, roots Beet, Sugar, Molasses 10.0 10 Beet, Sugar, Roots 1.0 1.0 Beet, Sugar, Tops 3.0 3.0 Blueberry 4.0 4.0 Caneberry Subgroup 13a 5.0 5.0 Caneberry subgroup 13A Canola/ rapeseed 35.0 35 Rapeseed, seed Canola/ rapeseed, meal 40.0 40 Rapeseed, meal Commodity Established Tolerance ( ppm) Recommended Tolerance ( ppm) Comments ( correct commodity definition)

Page 59 of 71 Carrot, Roots 1.0 1.0 Carrot Cattle, Fat 0.2 0.20 Cattle, Meat 0.2 0.20 Cattle, Meat Byproducts 1.0 1.0 Cherry, Sweet 0.2 0.20 Cherry, Tart 0.2 0.20 Citrus, Dried Pulp 1.5 1.5 Citrus, Molasses 1.5  Revoke: not a significant feedstuff Clover, Forage 35.0 35 Clover, Hay 50.0 55 The maximum residue observed was 50.7 ppm.

Coriander 4.0 4.0 Coriander, leaves Corn, Field, Grain 0.5 0.5 Corn, Forage 2.0 2.0 Corn, field, forage Corn, Fodder 2.5 2.5 Corn, field, stover Corn, Sweet, Forage 3.0 3.0 Corn, Sweet, Kernel plus Cob with Husks Removed 0.4 0.40 Corn, Sweet, Stover 3.5 3.5 Cotton, Seed, Soapstock 15  Revoke: not a significant feedstuff Cotton, Undelinted Seed 5.0 5.0 Cranberry 2.0 2.5 The maximum residue observed was 2.2 ppm.

Egg 2.0 2.0 Flax, Meal 7 7.0 Flax, Seed 5.0 5.0 Flax, Straw 2.0  Revoke: not a significant feedstuff Fruit, citrus 0.5 0.50 Fruit, citrus, group 10 Fruit, Pome 0.2 0.20 Fruit, pome, group 11 Goat, Fat 0.2 0.20 Goat, Meat 0.2 0.20 Goat, Meat Byproducts 1.0 1.0 Grape 1.0 1.0 Grape, Raisin 2.0 2.0 Commodity Established Tolerance ( ppm) Recommended Tolerance ( ppm) Comments ( correct commodity definition)

Page 60 of 71 Hog, Fat 0.2 0.20 Hog, Meat 0.2 0.20 Hog, Meat Byproducts 1.0 1.0 Horse, Fat 0.2 0.20 Horse, Meat 0.2 0.20 Horse, Meat Byproducts 1.0 1.0 Horseradish 4.0 4.0 Juneberry 5.0 5.0 Lentil, seed 30.0 30 Lingonberry 5.0 5.0 Milk 0.5 0.50 Nectarine 0.2 0.20 Peach 0.2 0.20 Peanut 25.0 25 Peanut, Soapstock 75.0  Revoke: not a significant feedstuff Pea, Dry, Seed 40.0 40 Pea, Field, Hay 40.0 40 Pea, Field, Vines 20.0 20 Pea, Succulent 10.0 10 Peppermint, tops ( stems and leaves 30.0 30 Peppermint, tops Pistachio 0.2 0.20 Potato, Flakes 8.0 8.0 Combine these two tolerances into the following: Potato, granules/ flakes Potato, Granules 8.0 8.0 Potato waste, processed ( wet and dry) 8.0 8.0 Potato, processed potato waste Poultry, Fat 0.2 0.20 Poultry, Meat 0.2 0.20 Poultry, Meat Byproducts 2.0 2.0 Rhubarb 0.3 0.30 Tolerance with Regional Registration Safflower 15.0 15 Safflower, seed Two additional safflower field trials Commodity Established Tolerance ( ppm) Recommended Tolerance ( ppm) Comments ( correct commodity definition)

Page 61 of 71 are needed from Region 10.

Salal 5.0 5.0 Sheep, Fat 0.2 0.20 Sheep, Meat 0.2 0.20 Sheep, Meat Byproducts 1.0 1.0 Soybean 16.0 16 Soybean, seed Soybean, Hay 10.0 10 Spearmint, tops ( stems and leaves) 30.0 30 Spearmint, tops Strawberry 10.0 10 Sunflower, Meal 20.0 20 Sunflower, Seed 7.0 7.0 Tomato, Concentrated Products 24 24 Tomato, paste Tomato, Dry Pomace 12.0  Revoke: not a significant feedstuff Tree Nut 0.2 0.20 Nut, tree, group 14 Vegetable, Brassica, Leafy, Group 5 5.0 5.0 Additional field trials in CA and FL are still required for mustard greens.

Vegetable, Bulb, Group 3 1.0 1.0 Vegetable, bulb, group 3 Vegetable, Cucurbit, Group 9 4.0 4.0 Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 Vegetable, Fruiting, Group 8 4.0 4.0 Vegetable, fruiting, group 8 Vegetable, Leafy, Except Brassica, Group 4 4.0 4.0 Vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, group 4 Tuberous and Corm vegetable crop subgroup 4.0 4.0 Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C Page 62 of 71 Sethoxydim ( MS) MSO 10.0 APPENDIX 10.1 Names and Structures of Sethoxydim and Some Metabolites/ Analytes Sethoxydim = MS; 2[ 1( ethoxyimino) butyl] 5[ 2( ethylthio) propyl] 3 hydroxy 2 cyclohexen 1 one DME = 3[ 2( ethylsulfonyl) propyl] pentanedioic acid dimethyl ester DME OH = 3[ 2( ethylsulfonyl) propyl] 3 hydroxypentanedioic acid dimethyl ester MSO = sethoxydim sulfoxide; 2[ 1( ethoxyimino) butyl] 5[ 2( ethylsulfinyl) propyl] 3 hydroxy 2 cyclohexen 1 one MSO2 = sethoxydim sulfone; 2[ 1( ethoxyimino) butyl] 5[ 2( ethylsulfonyl) propyl] 3 hydroxy 2 cyclohexen 1 one M1SO = 2[ 1( imino) butyl] 5[ 2( ethylsulfinyl) propyl] 3 hydroxy 2 cyclohexen 1 one M2SO = 6[ 2( ethylsulfinyl) propyl] 6,7 dihydro 2 propyl 4( 5H) benzoxazolone M2SO2 = 6[ 2( ethylsulfonyl) propyl] 6,7 dihydro 2 propyl 4( 5H) benzoxazolone 5 OH MSO2 = 5 hydroxy sethoxydim sulfone; 2[ 1( ethoxyimino) butyl] 5[ 2 ( ethylsulfonyl) propyl] 3,5 dihydroxy 2 cyclohexen 1 one Page 63 of 71 M1S 5 OH MSO M1SO MSO2 M1SO2 OH MSO2 Page 64 of 71 M2S MGSO M2SO MGSO2 M2SO2 DME Page 65 of 71 OH M2SO2 DME OH 10.2 Toxicology Data Requirements The requirements ( 40 CFR 158.340) for food use for sethoxydim are in Table 1. Use of the new guideline numbers does not imply that the new ( 1998) guideline protocols were used.

Test Technical Required Satisfied 870.1100 Acute Oral Toxicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.1200 Acute Dermal Toxicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.1300 Acute Inhalation Toxicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.2400 Primary Eye Irritation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.2500 Primary Dermal Irritation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.2600 Dermal Sensitization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes yes yes

870.3100 Oral Subchronic ( rodent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.3150 Oral Subchronic ( nonrodent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.3200 21 Day Dermal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.3250 90 Day Dermal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.3465 28 Day Inhalation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes yes yes  yes yes no yes  yes 870.3700a Developmental Toxicity ( rodent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.3700b Developmental Toxicity ( nonrodent) . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.3800 Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes yes yes yes yes yes 870.4100a Chronic Toxicity ( rodent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.4100b Chronic Toxicity ( nonrodent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.4200a Oncogenicity ( rat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.4200b Oncogenicity ( mouse) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.4300 Chronic/ Oncogenicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  yes yes yes yes  yes yes yes yes Test Technical Required Satisfied Page 66 of 71 870.5100 Mutagenicity   Gene Mutation  bacterial . . . . . . . . 870.5300 Mutagenicity   Gene Mutation  mammalian . . . . . . 870.5915 Mutagenicity   Structural Chromosomal Aberrations 870.5550 Mutagenicity   Unscheduled DNA sythesis ( rat hepatocyte cells) . . . . . . . . . . . . yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 870.6100a Acute Delayed Neurotox. ( hen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.6100b 90 Day Neurotoxicity ( hen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.6200a Acute Neurotox. Screening Battery ( rat) . . . . . . . . . 870.6200b 90 Day Neuro. Screening Battery ( rat) . . . . . . . . . . . 870.6300 Develop. Neuro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . no no no no no

870.7485 General Metabolism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.7600 Dermal Penetration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes no yes

Special Studies for Ocular Effects Acute Oral ( rat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subchronic Oral ( rat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Six month Oral ( dog) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . no no no

10.3 Non critical Toxicology Studies STUDY TYPE: 90 Day Oral Toxicity Feeding Mouse; OPPTS 870.3100 [ 81 2]; OECD 408.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In a 14 week ( 98 day) oral toxicity study ( MRID 00045858) NP 55 ( sethoxydim technical, 95.9% a. i., lot # PN 1 1) was administered to 20 ICR mice/ sex/ dose in the diet at levels of 0, 100, 300, 900, or 2700 ppm ( equivalent to 0, 15.4, 45.6, 137.1, or 373.6 mg/ kg bw/ day for males and 0, 17.2, 52.7, 164.4, or 486.3 mg/ kg bw/ day for females).

There were no compound related effects on mortality, clinical signs, body weight, food consumption, hematology, clinical chemistry, or gross pathology. Absolute liver weights of males in the 900 and 2700 ppm groups and of females in the 2700 ppm group were increased by 13 and 33% ( both, p< 0.01) and 32% ( non significant), respectively. Hepatocellular hypertrophy was observed microscopically in the livers of these dose groups. Liver weights relative to body weights were also significantly increased in both males and females in the 900 and 2700 ppm dietary groups. The increased liver weights accompanied by histopathological evidence hepatocellular changes are considered treatment related effects.

The NOAEL for NP 55 in mice is 300 ppm in the diet ( males, 45.6 mg/ kg/ day; females, 52.7 mg/ kg/ day). The LOAEL is 900 ppm ( males, 137.1 mg/ kg/ day; females, 164.4 mg/ kg/ day) based on increase liver weight and histopathological evidence of hepatocellular Page 67 of 71 hypertrophy.

This 90 day oral toxicity study in the mouse is Acceptable/ Guideline and satisfies the guideline requirement for a 90 day oral toxicity study ( OPPTS 870.3100; OECD 408) in the rodent. Although many guideline requirements/ recommendations were not fulfilled, these were generally minor deviations that did not impact the results of the study.

STUDY TYPE: 90 Day Oral Toxicity [ Feeding] Rat; OPPTS 870.3100 [ § 82 la] ( rodent); OECD 408.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In a subchronic oral toxicity study ( MRID 00045859) NP 55 ( Sethoxydim; 95.9% a. i., lot # PN 1 1)] was administered to 20 Wistar rats/ sex/ dose in the diet at concentrations of 0, 33, 100, 300, 900, or 2700 ppm ( equivalent to 0, 2.25, 20.12, 60.43, and 196.34 mg/ kg bw/ day, respectively, in males; 0, 2.42, 7.08, 21.43, 66.18, and 200.45 mg/ kg bw/ day, respectively, in females) for 98 days.

Treatment with the high dose ( 2700 ppm) of NP 55 resulted in suppressed growth in both males and females. Statistically significant ( p< 0.05; 0.01) decreases in mean absolute body weights were observed in high dose males starting at week 6 and continuing throughout treatment ( 92 96% of controls, terminal body weight 91% of controls), and in high dose females at weeks 12 and 14 ( 96 and 94% of controls, respectively; terminal body weight 94% of controls). High dose males and females also had decreases in overall body weight gain for weeks 0 14 ( 83 and 86% of controls, respectively; p< 0.01). Tbe decreases in body weights were accompanied by decreases in food efficiency: overall food efficiency for weeks 0 14 was decreased by 26% and 21% in high dose males and females, respectively. In contrast, food consumption did not appear to be affected by treatment. However, comparable or greater food consumption values were noted at various intervals, including the total amount of food consumed over the entire study period of weeks 0 14 ( 105% and 102% of controls for high dose males and females, respectively). No effects on body weights or food consumption values were found in the other treated males or females. Treatment with up to 2700 ppm NP 55 did not adversely affect survival, clinical signs, water consumption, hematology or clinical chemistry parameters, urinalysis results, or gross or microscopic findings.

The LOAEL is 2700 ppm ( 196.34 mg/ kg/ day in males; 200.45 mg/ kg/ day in females) based on decreases in body weight, body weight gain, and food efficiency. The NOAEL is 900 ppm ( 60.43 mg/ kg/ day for males; 66.18 mg/ kg/ day in females).

This 90 day oral toxicity study in the rat is Acceptable/ Guideline and does satisfy the guideline requirement for a 90 day oral toxicity study ( OPPTS 870.3100; OECD 408) in rats. Few deficiencies were noted in this study, to include mixing procedure used in the diet preparation andocular examination following dietary exposure to NP 55. Page 68 of 71 STUDY TYPE: Subchronic Oral Toxicity [ feeding][ dog] [ OPPTS 870.3150 ( § 82 l)] ( non rodent); OECD 409.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In a 26 week oral toxicity study ( MRID 00045860) NP 55 ( 91.6% a. i,, lot # PN 1 2) was administered to 6 beagle dogs/ sex/ dose in the diet at concentrations of 0, 120, 600, or 3000 ppm. Approximate doses to the animals in the treated groups were 3.2 3.7, 16.6 20.3, and 82.8 95.2 mg/ kg/ day, for males and 3.2 3.5, 14.4 20.3, and 73.2 102 mg/ kg/ day for females., respectively.

No dose or treatment related differences in absolute body weights or in body weight gains, food consumption, urinalysis parameters, or ophthalmoscopic examinations were observed in males or females during the study.

Possible treatment related clinical findings were limited to sanguineous appearing urine in one low dose male, two mid dose males, and one high dose male; apparent urinary calculi were found in these animals during catheterization. One high dose male was sacrificed in extremis during week 10 due to a calculi blocked urethra resulting in severe necrotizing suppurative cystitis. All remaining animals survived to scheduled termination.

White cell counts were consistently higher for all treated groups compared with the controls with statistical significance ( p < 0.05) attained occasionally for mid and high dose females and high dose males. Through week 13 of the study, LDH values for the mid and high dose males were 41 57% and 44 57%, respectively, of the controls and for the mid and high dose females were52 65% and 54 57%, respectively, of the controls. By week 26, some recovery was evident with LDH values 72 82% of the control levels for all of these treated groups. Alkaline phosphatase levels were increased throughout the study for the high dose males and females to 155 326% and215 240%, respectively, of the controls and for the mid dose males at week 26 to 171% of the control level. Total albumin levels were decreased in the high dose males and females to 89 91% and 83 91%, respectively, of the control levels which resulted in corresponding decreases in the albumin: globulin ratio for these groups compared with the controls. PSP excretion rates for the mid and high dose males and all treated females generally declined over time. Excretion rates were 47 52% and 27 45% of the controls for the mid and high dose males, respectively, and 67 79%, 42 48%, and 24 31% of the controls for the low, mid, and high dose females, respectively. Other differences in hematology and clinical chemistry parameters were sporadic, not dose related, or not sustained over time.

With respect to the control values, absolute and relative liver weights were 112% and 112%, respectively, for the mid dose males, 144% and 136%, respectively, for the high dose males, and 116% and 115%, respectively, for the high dose females. Gross necropsy findings among animals sacrificed at study termination, included urinary calculi in one low dose male, two mid dose males and two high dose males. Microscopically, cystitis of the urinary bladder, characterized by mucosal hyperpiasia, submucosal edema, hemorrhage, and inflammatory infiltrate, was observed Page 69 of 71 in animals from all treated groups. The incidence of cystitis in the control, low, mid, and highdose groups was 0/ 6, 2/ 6, 3/ 6, and 3/ 6, respectively, for males and 0/ 6, 3/ 6, 2/ 6, and 3/ 6, respectively, for females. Pyelitis in the renal pelvis was observed in 2/ 6 mid and 3/ 6 high dose males. In addition, uroliths were seen in one mid dose and two high dose males.

The tentative LOAEL is 120 ppm ( 3.183 3.740 and 3.198 3.460 mg/ kg/ day for male and female dogs, respectively) based on cystitis of the urinary bladder. The NOAEL is not identified.

This 26 week oral toxicity study m the dog is Unacceptable/ Non guideline and does not satisfy the guideline requirement for a 90 day oral toxicity study ( OPPTS 870.3150; OECD 409) in dogs. The dogs were fed the formulated diet once weekly for six weeks, then twice weekly for the remaining 26 week period. They were observed for clinical signs daily for the first 2 weeks, then biweekly. The results of feed analysis concentration of the a. i deviated widely.

STUDY TYPE: 21 Day Dermal Toxicity Study in Rabbits; OPPTS 870.3200 [ 82 2]; OECD 411 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In a 21 day dermal toxicity study ( MRID 41987203), groups of 5 male and 5 female New Zealand White rabbits were dermally dosed with sethoxydim 6 hours per day over 21 consecutive days at 0 ( vehicle control), 40,200, and 1000 mg/ kg/ day. The only doserelated dosing site lesion was slight epidermal hyperplasia, which was found in nearly all highdose males and females, and was probably an adaptive response. There was no evidence of compound related toxicity onclinical signs, body weights, food consumption, food efficiency, eye health, clinical pathology, organ weights, or gross pathology. The NOAEL is > 1000 mg/ kg/ day ( limit dose) and the systemic LOAEL is not identified.

This study is Acceptable Guideline, and thus satisfies data requirement 82 2 for a 21 Day Dermal Toxicity Study. This study received Quality Assurance review.

STUDY TYPE: Chronic toxicity  dog [ feeding]; OPPTS 870,4100 [ § 83 l]; OECD 452.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In a chronic toxicity study ( MRIDs 00152669 and 40629001.) NP 55 ( 96.86% a, i., lot # KK 1240) was administered to 6 beagle dogs/ sex/ dose in the diet at concentrations of 0, 300, 600, or 3600 ppm for 12 months. Overall time weighted average doses were 0, 8.7, 17.5, and 110 mg/ kg/ day, respectively, for males and 0, 9.4,19.9, and 129 mg/ kg/ day, respectively, for females.

All animals survived to scheduled termination. No adverse, treatment related effects on clinical signs, body  weight, food consumption, or gross pathology, were observed. Mild to moderate changes were observed in hematology, clinical chemistry, liver weights, and microscopic pathology. In males, dose related changes in red cell parameters were suggestive of a hemolytic Page 70 of 71 episode and correlated with increases in hemosiderosis in the spleen which was observed microscopically with special iron staining. However, the magnitude of the changes is not considered to be adverse Evidence of hepatocyte enzyme induction was apparent from increased liver weights ( both absolute and relative) of high dose males and females and histopathological lesions in all treated male groups and in mid and high dose females. However, BSP clearance showed no effect on liver excretion. Dose related increases in alkaline phosphatase in both sexes ( up to 4.0 fold increase), ALT ( 2 fold compared to controls), slight decrease in albumin and cholesterol levels were observed during different periods of the study.

There was a slight increase in splenic hemosiderosis ( seen in iron stained sections only) in the high dose males and females, and a slight decrease in myeloid erythropoiesis in the sternal bone marrow of the high dose males, but in the absence of marked anemia, the significance and the cause of these findings are uncertain.

The NOAEL is 600 ppm ( 17.5 and 19.9 mg/ kg/ day, for males and females, respectively) add the LOAEL is 3600 ppm ( 110 and 129 nig/ kg/ day, for males and females, respectively) based on increased hemosiderosis in the spleen and depressed myeloid erythropoiesis in the sternal bone marrow, increased absolute and relative liver weights, increased alkaline phosphatase and ALT levels.

This chronic toxicity study is Acceptable/ Guideline and does satisfy the guideline requirement for a chronic oral study [ OPPTS 870.4100, OECD 452] in dogs.

STUDY TYPE: Combined Chronic Toxicity/ Carcinogenicity Study in Rats; OPPTS 870.4300 [ § 83 5]; OECD 453 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In a chronic toxicity/ oncogenicity study ( MRID 43939101), sethoxydim ( 96.8% a. i.) was administered to groups of 50 male and 50 female Wistar rats at dietary concentrations of 0, 264, 1000, or 3000 ppm ( 0, 12, 48, and 143 mg/ kg/ day for males and 0, 17, 66, 204 mg/ kg/ day for females) for up to 24 months ( main study groups). Additional groups of 10 rats per sex/ per group were fed the same concentrations for up to 24 months for terminal evaluation ( satellite groups).

No treatment related clinical signs of toxicity or increases in mortality rates were observed for either the main study or satellite groups. Treatment related effects on mean body weights were observed in male rats administered diets containing 1000 or 3000 ppm of the test material and in females administered 3000 ppm. Body weight decreases ranged from  2% to  6% ( p< 0.01 or < 0.05) from day 14 to day 483 for 1000 ppm group males,  3% to  9% from day 7 to day 483 and on day 707 for 3000 ppm group males,  3% on day 7 and  8% to  15% from day 14 to 651 for 3000 ppm group females. Satellite males also showed statistically significant decreases in body weight, but not satellite females. Male rats in the 1000 and 3000 ppm groups ( main study) Page 71 of 71 gained 8 and 9% less ( p< 0.01) weight than controls during the entire first year of the study, 10% less at 3000 ppm or 45% more at 1000 ppm during the second year, and overall 9% less at 3000 ppm or 2% less at 1000 ppm for the entire study. Females fed the 3000 ppm diet ( main study) gained 15% less weight than controls ( p< 0.01) during the first year, 57% more during the second year, and only 5% less overall for the entire study. At 3000 ppm, male rats consumed slightly but significantly less ( up to  6%) food than controls at some time intervals up to day 147, and females consumed significantly less ( up to  8%) food than controls at some intervals up to day 91. Food efficiency was decreased by up to 15% ( p< 0.01) at 3000 ppm and 11% ( p< 0.01) at 1000 ppm for the first 28 or 35 days, respectively in main study males and by 11 25% for 1000 or 3000 ppm group females.

No treatment related hematologic changes were observed. Decreases in alkaline phosphatase, increases in creatinine, and decreases in triglycerides were attributed to the nutritional status of the animals and not to treatment with the test material.

Treatment related pathologic changes occurred in the lungs and liver. Treatment related effects in the lungs included increased incidences of interstitial fibrosis in the lungs of female rats fed the 3000 ppm diet ( 9/ 60 vs 2/ 60 for controls, p< 0.05) and heart failure cells in the lungs of 3000 ppm group male ( 16/ 60 vs 4/ 60 for controls, p< 0.01) and female rats ( 10/ 60 vs 3/ 60, p< 0/ 05). The liver was the primary target for sethoxydim. Serum bilirubin levels were elevated up to 194% of controls in males and up to 377% in females at 1000 or 3000 ppm. Treatment related histopathologic effects in the liver included increased incidences of eosinophilic foci in 33/ 60 ( p< 0.01) males fed 3000 ppm compared with 14/ 60 controls, centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy in 38/ 60 ( p< 0.01) males at 3000 ppm, 10/ 60 ( p< 0.01) males at 1000 ppm, 33/ 60 ( p< 0.01) females at 3000 ppm compared with 0/ 60 controls of either sex. In addition, the incidence of centrilobular fatty infiltration in the liver was increased in male rats ( 20/ 60 vs 7/ 60 controls, p< 0.01) at 3000 ppm, and the incidence of zone 1 fatty infiltration in the liver showed a negative trend in males ( 6/ 60 vs 41/ 60 for controls, p< 0.01) and females ( 18/ 60 vs 36/ 60 for controls, p< 0.01) at 3000 ppm.

The lowest observed adverse effect level ( LOAEL) for Sethoxydim is 1000 ppm ( 48 mg/ kg/ day) for male rats based on liver toxicity ( centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy) and 3000 ppm ( 204 mg/ kg/ day) for female rats based on decreased body weight, body weight gain, liver toxicity ( centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy), and lung lesions ( heart failure cells and interstitial fibrosis). The no observed adverse effect level ( NOAEL) was 264 ppm ( 12 mg/ kg/ day) for male rats and 1000 ppm ( 66 mg/ kg/ day) for female rats.

The chronic toxicity/ carcinogenicity is ACCEPTABLE GUIDELINE and satisfies the guideline requirement for a chronic toxicity/ carcinogenicity study ( § 83 5) in rats.


[Federal Register: June 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 120)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35619-35622]
[DOCID:fr23jn10-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0122; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-067-AD;
Amendment 39-16338; AD 2010-13-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA-32R-301T
and PA-46-350P Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA-32R-301T and PA-46-350P airplanes. This
AD requires you to replace any spot-welded, V-band exhaust coupling
with a riveted, V-band exhaust coupling. This AD results from reports
that spot-welded, V-band exhaust couplings are failing. We are issuing
this AD to prevent failure of the V-band exhaust coupling, which could
cause the exhaust pipe to detach from the turbocharger. This failure
could result in release of high-temperature gases inside the engine
compartment and possibly cause an in-flight fire. An in-flight fire
could lead to loss of control.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on July 28, 2010.

    On July 28, 2010, the Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD.

ADDRESSES: To get the service information identified in this AD,
contact Lycoming, 652 Oliver Street, Williamsport, PA 17701; telephone:
(570) 323-6181; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.lycoming.com.
    To view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov. The docket number is FAA-2010-0122;
Directorate Identifier; 2009-CE-067-AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darby Mirocha, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (404) 474-
5606; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On February 9, 2010, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that
would apply to Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA-32R-301T and PA-46-350P
airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on February 19, 2010 (75 FR 7407).
The NPRM proposed to require replacing any spot-welded, V-band exhaust
coupling with a riveted, V-band exhaust coupling.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received one comment in support of the AD. The following
presents the additional comments received on the proposal and FAA's
response to each comment:

Comment Issue No. 1: Incorporate Additional Lycoming Service
Instructions

    Gerald Stroum and Gerald Blank suggest that Lycoming Service
Instructions 1448 and 1238B be incorporated into the AD because they
contain helpful instructions and procedures for the proper installation
of exhaust components.
    Mr. Stroum also suggests that adding a requirement to free all slip
joints when replacing the clamp will assist in enabling the exhaust
system to be installed and aligned correctly.
    The commenters state that these types of clamps (spot welded) have
been used with a long history of success in the automotive diesel
industry, and the issue is more readily solved by proper installation
than by a change in clamp design. Their experience shows proper
installation, torque techniques, and pre-torque alignments of
components go a long way in preventing clamp failures down the road.
    We agree with the commenters that proper installation and
maintenance, which includes freeing the slip joint to ensure proper
operation, plays a key role in the longevity and proper function of the
exhaust system.
    The data in Lycoming Service Instruction 1448 contains references
to part numbers that are not the subject of this AD; therefore, we have
determined including reference to that service instruction would
provide confusing and contradictory information. However, we agree
Lycoming Service Instruction 1238B provides beneficial information
about the proper assembly and torque procedures of V-band clamps.
    We will change the final rule AD action to incorporate by reference
Lycoming Service Instruction 1238B. We will not change the final rule
AD action to incorporate reference to Lycoming Service Instruction
1448.

Comment Issue No. 2: Correct the Cost of Compliance

    Gerald Blank, Ed Novak, and Shoreline Aviation, Inc. state that the
Cost of Compliance section in the proposed AD incorrectly reflects the
number of V-band clamps installed on the airplanes affected by this AD.
    All three commenters suggest changing the Cost of Compliance
section to accurately reflect the number of V-band clamps installed on
each affected model airplane.
    We agree with the commenters. After further research, we determined
that Model PA-32R-301T (Saratoga II TC) has two of the affected V-Band
clamps installed, and Model PA-46-350P (Mirage) has one. We will change
the final rule AD action to incorporate this change.

Comment Issue No. 3: The AD Should Be Written Against the V-Band Clamp
Instead of the Airplanes

    Ed Novak and Shoreline Aviation, Inc. both suggest that since
identical clamps have failed on other airplane models that prompted two
previous ADs (AD 2000-11-04 for Commander Aircraft Company (Commander)
Model 114TC airplanes and AD 2004-23-17 for Mooney Airplane Company,
Inc., (Mooney) Model M20M airplanes), this AD should be written against
the Lycoming engine/clamp combination restricting its use on any
exhaust system.
    Shoreline Aviation, Inc. states the incident that prompted this AD
would not have happened if the previous ADs had been written against
the clamp and not the airplanes.
    Based on the specific reports the FAA has received to date
regarding Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA-32R-301T and PA-46-350P
airplanes and with the subsequent issuance of Piper Service Bulletin
1180A, the FAA initiated this AD action against certain Piper airplanes
only.
    We will continue to collect and analyze all available data to
determine whether the condition exists in any other airplane
configurations. We may take additional rulemaking action in the future
to address either additional airplane configurations or the engine
design depending on the FAA's determination of all existing and future
information received.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that
air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed
except for incorporating reference to Lycoming Service Instruction
1238B and updating the Cost of Compliance section to accurately reflect
how many V-band clamps each model of the airplanes affected by this AD
has installed, and minor editorial corrections. We have determined that
these minor corrections:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 596 airplanes in the U.S. registry
provided they have the affected V-band exhaust coupling installed.
    We estimate the following costs to do the replacement for Model PA-
46-350P airplanes. These airplanes have one V-band clamp installed:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Total cost per
                                                           model PA-46-
               Labor cost                   Parts cost     350P airplane

------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170......            $714            $884
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     We estimate the following costs to do the replacement for Model
PA-32R-301T airplanes. These airplanes have two V-band clamps
installed:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total cost per
                                                                                model PA-32R-
                       Labor cost                                       Parts cost                 301T airplane

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours per V-band clamp. 2 clamps per airplane: 4  $714 per V-band clamp. $714 x 2 =                $1,768
 work-hours x $85 per hour = $340.                        $1,428..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 AD.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. 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 summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and
other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed
it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a
request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket
No. FAA-2010-0122; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-067-AD'' in your
request.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (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. FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding a new AD to read as follows:

2010-13-07 Piper Aircraft, Inc.: Amendment 39-16338; Docket No. FAA-
2010-0122; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-067-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective on July 28, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the following airplane models and serial
numbers that are certificated in any category:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Model                            Serial numbers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA-32R-301T......................  3257001 through 3257311.
PA-46-350P.......................  4622001 through 4622200 and 4636001
                                    through 4636341.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 78: Engine
Exhaust.

Unsafe Condition

    This AD is the result of reports that spot-welded, V-band
exhaust couplings are failing. We are issuing this AD to prevent
failure of the V-band exhaust coupling, which could cause the
exhaust pipe to detach from the turbocharger. This failure could
result in release of high-temperature gases inside the engine
compartment and possibly cause an in-flight fire. An in-flight fire
could lead to loss of control.

Compliance

    (e) To address this problem, you must do the following, unless
already done:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Actions                 Compliance            Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Replace V-band exhaust    At the next           Remove the spot
 couplings, part number (P/    regularly scheduled   welded V-band
 N) Lycoming 40D21162-340M     maintenance event     clamp(s) and
 or Eaton/Aeroquip 55677-      after July 28, 2010   discard. Then, do
 340M with an improved         (the effective date   either of the
 design Eaton/Aeroquip P/N     of this AD) or        following actions:
 NH1009399-10 or Lycoming P/   within the next 25   (i) Install the new
 N 40D23255-340M.              hours time-in-        riveted clamp(s)
                               service (TIS) after   and tighten to an
                               July 28, 2010 (the    initial torque of
                               effective date of     40 in. lbs. Tap the
                               this AD), whichever   V-band clamp(s)
                               occurs first.         around its
                                                     circumference with
                                                     a rubber mallet to
                                                     equalize band
                                                     tension. Retorque
                                                     the clamp(s) to 60
                                                     in. lbs. and again
                                                     tap the clamp(s)
                                                     around its
                                                     circumference.
                                                     Retorque the
                                                     clamp(s) to a 60
                                                     in. lbs. final
                                                     torque and re-
                                                     safety wire the V-
                                                     band coupling(s);
                                                     or
                                                    (ii) Install the new
                                                     riveted clamp(s)
                                                     follow Lycoming
                                                     Service Instruction
                                                     No. 1238B, dated
                                                     January 6, 2010,
                                                     and re-safety wire
                                                     the V-band
                                                     coupling(s).
(2) Do not install any Eaton/ As of July 28, 2010   Not applicable.
 Aeroquip P/N 55677-340M or    (the effective date
 Lycoming P/N 40D21162-340M.   of this AD).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (f) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: Darby Mirocha, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone: (404) 474-
5573; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (g) You must use Lycoming Service Instruction No. 1238B, dated
January 6, 2010, or the procedures specified in paragraph (e)(1) of
this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Lycoming, 652 Oliver Street, Williamsport, PA 17701; telephone:
(570) 323-6181; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://
www.lycoming.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the FAA, Central Region,
Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
Central Region, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 14, 2010.
Sandra J. Campbell,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-14991 Filed 6-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Historical records of abundance of special status fish species in the Bay Delta region. These historical records were used to estimate current abundance and to estimate population restoration targets that would represent restoration of abundance for each species to pre decline levels. Current abundance and restoration targets were used in estimating a $/ fish value for special status species in the Bay Delta region. >= 40 inch green sturgeon Year abundance 1954 198 1965 71 1967 1,850 1968 1,037 1974 203 1975 76 1979 1,906 1983 84 1984 1,106 1985 847 1987 598 1990 739 1991 1993 451 1994 1997 1,118 Estimates calculated as GST: WST proportion times the mark recapture WST population estimate. Includes fish 40 inches and above, the minimum legal size limit before 1990.


[Federal Register: January 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 10)]
[Notices]
[Page 2577-2578]
[DOCID:fr15ja09-87]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1267-087]

Greenwood County, SC; Notice of Application and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

January 9, 2009.
    a. Type of Application: Application to temporarily amend the rule
curve pursuant to article 407 of the project license.
    b. Project Number: Project No. 1267-087.
    c. Date Filed: December 23, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Greenwood County, South Carolina.
    e. Name of Project: Buzzard's Roost Hydroelectric Project (FERC No.
1267).
    f. Location: The project is located on the Saluda River in
Greenwood, Laurens and Newberry Counties, South Carolina..
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a), 825(r)
and 799 and 801.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Charles M. Watson Jr., County Attorney,
County of Greenwood, 600 Monument St., Suite 102, Greenwood, SC 29646,
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to B. Peter Yarrington at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: January 26, 2009.
    k. Description of Application: Because of ongoing drought
conditions, the applicant seeks approval to temporarily amend article
407 of its project license to revise the schedule for management of
lake levels (rule curve). Under the rule curve, the reservoir level is
raised to an elevation of 439 feet mean sea level (msl) by April 15
each year. Beginning on September 1, the reservoir level is then
reduced until it reaches 437 feet msl by October 1. The level is then
maintained at 437 feet msl until January 1, when it is reduced to 434.5
feet msl by February 1. At that time, the reservoir level is increased
and the annual cycle is repeated. The licensee proposes to forgo the
reservoir level reduction from 437 feet msl to 434.5 feet msl that
would normally occur from January 1 to February 1, 2009, and would then
refill the reservoir to the summer elevation of 439 feet msl by March
15, 2009, rather than waiting until April 15.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field (p-1267) to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to

intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate
action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other
comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in
accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the
proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be
received on or before the specified comment date for the particular
application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers (p-1267-080). All documents (original and eight
copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each
representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-749 Filed 1-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P