[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 5, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61592-61597]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25707]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0906; FRL-8874-6]

Isopyrazam; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of
isopyrazam in or on banana. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., requested
this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective October 5, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before December 5, 2011,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0906. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining

whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0906 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
December 5, 2011. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0906, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of February 4, 2010 (75 FR 5790) (FRL-8807-
5), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
9E7606) by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro,
NC 27419-8300. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended
by establishing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide isopyrazam,
in or on banana at 0.05 ppm parts per million (ppm). That notice
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop
Protection, Inc., the registrant, which is available in the docket,
http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response
to the notice of filing.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue * *
*.''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for isopyrazam including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with isopyrazam
follows:

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Isopyrazam is of low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal and
inhalation routes, and is not a skin or eye irritant. The primary
target organ for isopyrazam toxicity is the liver based on subchronic
and chronic oral studies in the rat, mouse rabbit and dog. The
principal effects observed in these studies are increased organ weight
and centrilobular hepatocyte hypertrophy. Liver toxicity is usually
accompanied by reductions in body weight and food consumption.
Isopyrazam does not cause reproductive toxicity. Developmental effects
(eye abnormalities) were observed in the absence of maternal toxicity
in two range finding developmental toxicity studies in rabbits
providing some evidence of sensitivity/susceptibility following pre-
and/or postnatal exposure. Developmental studies in rats produced
developmental effects but only at doses that were also maternally
toxic. Acute and subchronic oral neurotoxicity studies in rats show no
evidence of neurotoxicity. Effects characteristic of neurotoxicity
(side-to-side head wobble, ataxia, reduced stability) were observed on
day 2 in one subchronic oral study in dogs and at week 4 in a second
subchronic dog study. These effects were not observed in the chronic
dog study. However, EPA concluded for the following reasons that it is
unlikely that there was a neurotoxic basis for these effects. First,
the effects were seen only in a study not specifically conducted to
identify neurotoxic potential and where detailed clinical and
histopathological analyses for neurotoxic effects were not performed
whereas isopyrazam showed no evidence of neurotoxicity in the available
acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies. Second, isopyrazam is not
structurally similar to known neurotoxicants or neurotoxic classes of
chemicals. Finally, its pesticidal mode of action does not demonstrate
potential for neurotoxicity. Based on these findings, a developmental
neurotoxicity study for isopyrazam is not required.
    There is no evidence of immunotoxicity based on a 28-day dietary
immunotoxicity study in rats. The lowest observed adverse effect level

(LOAEL) for immunotoxicity was not identified and the no observed
adverse effect level (NOAEL) for immunotoxicity is 1,356 milligrams/
kilograms (mg/kg). The study NOAEL was 127 mg/kg/day, based on
transient body weight loss and high liver weights at both 608 and 1,356
mg/kg/day. The toxicology database for isopyrazam does not show any
evidence of treatment-related effects on the immune system. The overall
weight of evidence suggests that this chemical does not directly target
the immune system.
    Isopyrazam is classified as ``Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans''
based on tumors in male and female rats. Specific information on the
studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by
isopyrazam as well as the NOAEL and the LOAEL from the toxicity studies
can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``Isopyrazam
Human Health Risk Assessment for the Establishment of a Tolerance for
isopyrazam (SYN52043) Fungicide in/on Imported Banana,'' on pp. 8-12 in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0906.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern (LOC) to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to
the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is
no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed the NOAEL
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
the LOAEL. Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the
POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    PODs for incidental oral, dermal and inhalation exposure are not
needed to assess risk for the requested tolerance on bananas because
use of isopyrazam will only lead to dietary exposure, and have
therefore not been selected for this risk assessment.
    The acute POD of 30 mg/kg/day (NOAEL) was selected based on the
NOAEL from a subchronic toxicity study in dogs. In that study, clinical
signs of toxicity (side-to-side head wobble) were observed beginning on
day 2 and continuing throughout the study in 1 of 4 male dogs at the
LOAEL of 100 mg/kg/day. Transient clinical signs (side-to-side head
wobble, ataxia, reduced stability) were also observed at 300 mg/kg/day
in 3 of 4 male dogs on days 2 and 3 only. An uncertainty factor of 100x
(10x to account for interspecies extrapolation and 10x for intraspecies
variation) was applied to the NOAEL to obtain an aRfD of 0.30 mg/kg/
day. This endpoint is considered to occur following a single dose and
is applicable to the population of concern (general population,
including infants and children). It is considered to be a very
conservative endpoint since it is based on observations in 1/4 dogs and
these acute clinical signs were not reproduced in a second 90-day study
in dogs or in the chronic dog study. This endpoint is also protective
of the effects seen at the limit dose (2,000 mg/kg/day) in the acute
neurotoxicity study in rats (decreased rearing and locomotor activity)
and the developmental effect (bilateral microphthalmia) in the
developmental rabbit studies (at doses >=400 mg/kg/day). Therefore, a
separate acute dietary endpoint for females of reproductive age is not
necessary. As discussed in this unit, EPA has reduced the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor (SF) to 1x, and thus the acute
Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD) is equivalent to the acute Reference
Dose (aRfD).
    The chronic POD of 5.5 mg/kg/day was selected based on the NOAEL in
a chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity feeding study in rats. The LOAEL in
that study was 27.6 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight and body
weight gain in females; increased incidences of hepatocellular
hypertrophy, pigment in centrilobular hepatocytes, eosinophilic foci of
altered hepatocytes, vacuolation of centrilobular hepatocytes, bile
duct hyperplasia, and bile duct fibrosis in both sexes; and brown
pigment in the kidney in females. An uncertainty factor of 100x (10x to
account for interspecies extrapolation and 10x for intraspecies
variation) was applied to the dose to obtain the chronic reference dose
(cRfD) of 0.055 mg/kg/day. As discussed in this unit, EPA has reduced
the FQPA SF to 1x, and thus, the chronic population adjusted dose
(cPAD) is equivalent to the cRfD.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to isopyrazam, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances. EPA assessed dietary exposures from isopyrazam in food
as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    A conservative acute dietary (food only) exposure analysis was
performed for the general U.S. population and various population
subgroups. Tolerance level residues and 100 percent crop treated (PCT)
assumptions were used. Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) default
processing factors were used for processed commodities, since separate
tolerances are not considered necessary for processed banana
commodities.
    ii. Chronic exposure. Conservative chronic and cancer dietary (food
only) exposure analyses were performed for the general U.S. population
and various population subgroups. Tolerance level residues and 100 PCT
assumptions were used. DEEM default and empirical processing factors
were used for banana processed commodities, since separate tolerances
for these commodities were not considered necessary.
    iii. Cancer. EPA determines whether quantitative cancer exposure
and risk assessments are appropriate for a food-use pesticide based on
the weight of the evidence from cancer studies and other relevant data.
If quantitative cancer risk assessment is appropriate, cancer risk may
be quantified using a linear or nonlinear approach. If sufficient
information on the carcinogenic mode of action is available, a
threshold or non-linear approach is used and a cancer RfD is calculated
based on an earlier noncancer key event. If carcinogenic mode of action
data are not available, or if the mode of action data determines a
mutagenic mode of action, a default linear cancer slope factor approach
is utilized. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that isopyrazam should be classified as ``Likely to be
Carcinogenic to Humans''.
    A linear quantification of carcinogenic potential was required for
isopyrazam based on rat tumors. A cancer slope factor or Q1* of 0.00629
(mg/kg/day) -1 was calculated based on

an increase in liver adenomas and/or carcinomas in female rats. The
resulting cancer aggregate (food) exposure estimate was less than the
level of concern. Cancer risk was 1.3 x 10-7 for the general
U.S. population. Cancer risk was quantified using the same estimates as
discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. An assessment of residues
in drinking water is not needed because there is no drinking water
exposure associated with the establishment of a tolerance on imported
crops.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Isopyrazam is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found isopyrazam to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and isopyrazam does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
isopyrazam does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10x) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA SF. In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10x,
or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data
available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is some evidence for
increased susceptibility following pre- and or postnatal exposures
based on effects seen in range finding developmental toxicity studies
in rabbits. Developmental effects (eye abnormalities) were observed in
two preliminary developmental studies in Himalayan rabbits in the
absence of maternal toxicity. These effects occurred at relatively high
doses (200-400 mg/kg/day). There was no evidence of increased
susceptibility in the main study in New Zealand white rabbits. In range
finding and definitive developmental toxicity studies in rats, neither
quantitative nor qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of
fetuses to in utero exposure to isopyrazam was observed. There was no
evidence of increased susceptibility in a 2-generation reproduction
study following pre- or postnatal exposure to isopyrazam. There is no
evidence of neuropathology or abnormalities in the development of the
fetal nervous system from the available toxicity studies conducted with
isopyrazam. Clear NOAELs/LOAELs were established for the developmental
effects seen in rats and rabbits as well as for the offspring effects
seen in the 2-generation reproduction study and a dose-response
relationship for the effects of concern is well characterized. The dose
used for the acute dietary risk assessment (30 mg/kg/day), based on
effects seen in the subchronic dog study, is protective of the
developmental and offspring effects seen in rabbits at 200-400 mg/kg/
day. Based on these considerations, there are no residual uncertainties
for pre-and/or postnatal susceptibility.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1x. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for isopyrazam is complete and adequate
for assessing increased susceptibility under FQPA;
    ii. There is no indication of increased susceptibility of fetuses
to in utero and/or postnatal exposure in the developmental and
reproductive toxicity studies in rats;
    There is some evidence for increased susceptibility following pre-
and or postnatal exposures based on effects seen in range finding
developmental toxicity studies in rabbits. However, based on the
discussion above, EPA has concluded that there are no residual
uncertainties for pre-and/or postnatal susceptibility.
    iii. The dietary risk assessment is based on parent plus metabolite
residues in/on banana, and will not underestimate dietary exposure to
isopyrazam. For the acute, chronic and cancer dietary analyses,
tolerance level residues of parent plus metabolite and 100 PCT
assumptions were used for all treated commodities. There are no
residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate margin of exposure (MOE) exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food to
isopyrazam will occupy less than 1% of the aPAD for all populations.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
isopyrazam from food will utilize less than 1% of the cPAD for all
populations receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential
uses for isopyrazam.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Isopyrazam is
not registered in the U.S. Short-term risk is assessed based on short-
term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there
is no short-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has
already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is
at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), no
further assessment of short-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on
the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short-term risk for
isopyrazam.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic

exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Isopyrazam is not registered in the U.S. Intermediate-term risk
is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus
chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term
residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been
assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as
protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no
further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA
relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating
intermediate-term risk for isopyrazam.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Cancer Assessment
Review Committee (CARC) classified isopyrazam as Likely to be
Carcinogenic to Humans. This classification was based on the presence
of thyroid follicular cell tumors in male rats, and liver and uterine
tumors in female rats at doses that were adequate to evaluate the
carcinogenic potential of isopyrazam. No treatment-related tumors were
seen in mice. There is no mutagenic concern for isopyrazam.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to isopyrazam residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (Method GRM006.01B) is available
to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from:
Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for isopyrazam on banana.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of isopyrazam,
in or on banana at 0.05 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: September 27, 2011.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.654 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  180.654  Isopyrazam; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
fungicide isopyrazam, including its metabolites and degradates, in or
on the commodity

listed below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is
to be determined by measuring only isopyrazam, 3-difluoromethyl-1-
methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxylic acid (9-isopropyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-
1,4-methano-naphthalen-5-yl)-amide, in or on the following commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Banana\1\..................................................         0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There is no U.S. registration for use of isopyrazam on banana.

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2011-25707 Filed 10-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


          2010 New Crops: Exploring Diversity, Preserving our Future

                            Fort Collins, Colorado
                            September 18-22nd, 2010

http://www.ushrl.saa.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=257828

Research Project: INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS FROM NEW CROPS
Location: Bio-oils Research Unit
Title: Thlaspi arvense (Pennycress) germination, development and yield potential
Authors

Isbell, Terry

Cermak, Steven
Pennycress is being developed as an off-season rotation crop which precedes an annual soybean production. This rotation scheme may offer distinct advantages to farmers by providing additional farm income from an otherwise fallow season with little impact on the subsequent soybean production.
      Pennycress was grown on multi-acre field plot and small 2 m[2] plots in the fall of 2008 and 2009. In the fall of 2008 field plots were established with a Brillion 6' Sure Stand seeder at a planting rate of 2.5 x 10[6] seeds/hectare with expected germination of 72%. Plant stand density ranged from 7.4 x 10[5] to 3.2 x 106 plants/hectare. Plant density remained the same throughout the entire growing season. The multi-acre field had 1 m[2] hand harvest yield range of 226  -  1,533 kg/ha (202  -  1369 lbs/acre) and the corresponding block gave combine harvest yield rang of 607  -  1087 kg/ha (542  -  971 lbs/acre). Average yield determined for the field by 1 m[2] hand harvest was 1140 kg/ha (1018 lbs/acre) and the combine average yield was 1082 kg/ha (966 lbs/acre).
      In the fall of 2009, 1 m x 3 m complete randomized block design plots were established at NCAUR using a Great Plains 6' wide No-Till grain drill at a seeding rate of 2.5 x 10[6] plants per hectare. Several different thlaspi seed lots were evaluated for germination, plant stand development, maturity date, seed yield, oil content and fatty acid profile. Lines from the Beecher germplasm clearly outperformed all other lines and gave hand harvested yields of 1075  -  2534 kg/ha (1,204  -  2,263 lbs/acre) with an average yield of 2035 kg/ha (1817 lbs/acre).
      The seed was found to contain 36% oil with the major fatty acid as erucic at 38.1%, iodine value of 115. Viscosity index (VI) of the methyl esters was 277 with a 40[o]C viscosity of 5.0 cSt and pour point and cloud points of -15 and -10 [o]C respectively. The starting oil had a VI of 222 with a 40[o]C viscosity of 39.1 cSt and pour point and cloud points of -18[o]C and -10[o]C respectively. As expected, the flash point of the methyl esters 136[o]C was considerably less than the starting oil 234[o]C. Oil stability index (OSI) of the oil at 100[o]C was 39 h and 54.0 h for methyl esters.
      The early harvest date of pennycress compared to other winter annual oilseed crops will make it suitable for a two crop rotation with soybeans in most of the Midwestern U.S. In addition, the physical properties of the methyl esters indicate that continued development of the oil as a biodiesel is warranted.


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

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug
Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a
consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere
six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I believe that e-cigarettes are a safer alternative to combustible cigarettes. I also understand the need to confirm the relative safety of e-cigarettes; more specifically, the need to determine the relative safety of e-juice (containing nicotine) through scientific inquiry and experimentation; as well as through reference to published studies that are deemed pertinent to the issue of e-cigarettes and the relative safety of e-juice (containing nicotine).

I would like to add a few words regarding my own experience.

I quit smoking combustible cigarettes approximately four years ago and adopted an e-cigarette as an alternative. I mix my own "e-juice", which is a mixture of Vegetable Glycerin, Nicotine (including Vegetable Glycerin), flavor extracts and distilled water. I have reduced the amount of nicotine I add to the mixture from 24mg per ml to less than 4mg per ml. I anticipate that I will have completely freed myself from nicotine by the end of the current month (May of 2014).

These are the points I wish to emphasize.

1. The ability to control and account for the ingredients in the e-juice is an advantage over traditional combustible cigarettes.

2. Having control over the nicotine content of the e-juice (expressed in mg. per ml.), allows one to gradually reduce the amount of nicotine one consumes with the eventual goal of stopping the use of nicotine altogether.

3. Making use of an "e-cigarette" device to vaporize a liquid that does not contain nicotine is my goal. Once the nicotine is taken out of the equation, what interest could the FDA possibly have in this example?

It is my opinion that the availability of e-cigarettes has decreased the probability that I will suffer from a smoking related malady. Over the last four years, I have been less prone to lung infections, and in general feel healthier than I did when I was smoking combustible cigarettes. I will not say that e-cigarettes have saved my life. I will say that e-cigarettes provide a safer alternative to combustible cigarettes, as well as an apparently valid method for quitting nicotine altogether. This is the point I am most concerned about. If one takes nicotine out of the equation, it is not clear how vaporizing and inhaling Vegetable Glycerin mixed with a flavor extract requires the attention of the FDA. In short, one who has quit nicotine but continues to use an "e-cigarette" should be considered a separate class, and regulations pertaining to nicotine usage should not encumber those of us who are not ingesting it. This is just another way of saying that the devices (the "hardware") that can be used to vaporize a liquid by means of a resistance coil should not be regulated in any manner whatsoever, since it is the e-juice that contains the chemicals of interest to the FDA. In fact, calling the hardware device an e-cigarette is misleading. The device is a vaporizer, and it is not limited to one and only one purpose; that is, unlike a tobacco cigarette. Regulating the device is akin to regulating paper simply because one can use paper to wrap a conventional tobacco cigarette. This is not sensible.

I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am willing to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 184 (Friday, September 21, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47813-47815]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19936]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0359; Product Identifier 2018-NM-040-AD; Amendment
39-19405; AD 2018-19-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance
requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. This AD
requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable,
to incorporate new and more restrictive maintenance requirements and
airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 26, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 26,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box
2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet
http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this service information at
the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0359.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0359; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Dassault Aviation Model
MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on April 30, 2018 (83 FR 18753). The NPRM was prompted by a
determination that more restrictive maintenance requirements and
airworthiness limitations are necessary. The NPRM proposed to require
revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate new and more restrictive maintenance requirements and
airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced
structural integrity of the airplane.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2018-0027, dated January 30, 2018 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-
FALCON 900 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations and certification maintenance
instructions for the Dassault Myst[egrave]re-Falcon 900 aeroplanes,
which are approved by EASA, are currently defined and published in
the Dassault Myst[egrave]re-Falcon 900 [Airplane Maintenance Manual]
AMM chapter 5-40. These instructions have been identified as
mandatory for continued airworthiness.
    Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an
unsafe condition [i.e., reduced structural integrity of the
airplane].
    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016-0127 [which corresponds to FAA
AD 2017-19-03 Amendment 39-19033 (82 FR 43166, September 14, 2017)
(``AD 2017-19-03'')] to require accomplishment of the maintenance
tasks, and implementation of the airworthiness limitations, as
specified in Dassault Myst[egrave]re-Falcon 900 AMM chapter 5-40
Revision 22.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Dassault issued Revision 23 of
the Dassault Myst[egrave]re-Falcon 900 AMM chapter 5-40, which
introduces new and more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or
airworthiness limitations.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2016-0127, which is superseded, and requires
accomplishment of the actions specified in Revision 23 of the
Dassault Myst[egrave]re-Falcon 900 AMM chapter 5-40 * * *.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0359.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the
determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed,
except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Dassault Aviation has issued Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness
Limitations, Revision 23, dated September 2017, of the Dassault
Aviation Falcon 900 Maintenance Manual. This service information
describes procedures, maintenance tasks, and airworthiness limitations
specified in the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the AMM.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 65 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
    We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection
program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we
recognize that this number may vary from operator to

operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-
hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or
inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), we have
determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-
airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator
to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    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),
    (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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2018-19-05 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-19405; Docket No. FAA-
2018-0359; Product Identifier 2018-NM-040-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 26, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2010-26-05, Amendment 39-16544 (75 FR 79952,
December 21, 2010) (``AD 2010-26-05''); AD 2016-01-16, Amendment 39-
18376 (81 FR 3320, January 21, 2016) (``AD 2016-01-16''); and AD
2017-19-03, Amendment 39-19033 (82 FR 43166, September 14, 2017)
(``AD 2017-19-03'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900
airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time limits/
maintenance checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive
maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are
necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural
integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
information specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations,
Revision 23, dated September 2017, of the Dassault Aviation Falcon
900 Maintenance Manual. The initial compliance times for doing the
tasks are at the time specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness
Limitations, Revision 23, dated September 2017, of the Dassault
Aviation Falcon 900 Maintenance Manual, or within 90 days after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. The term ``LDG''
in the ``First Inspection'' column of any table in the service
information specified in this paragraph means total airplane
landings. The term ``FH'' in the ``First Inspection'' column of any
table in the service information specified in this paragraph means
total flight hours. The term ``FC'' in the ``First Inspection''
column of any table in the service information specified in this
paragraph means total flight cycles. The term ``M'' in the ``First
Inspection'' column of any table in the service information
specified in this paragraph means months.

(h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections), or intervals, may be used unless the actions, or
intervals, are approved as an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(j)(1) of this AD.

(i) Terminating Actions for Certain Other ADs

    (1) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this
AD terminates all requirements of AD 2016-01-16 and AD 2017-19-03.
    (2) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this
AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2010-26-05,
for Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. 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.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective

actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a
method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval
(DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0027, dated January 30, 2018, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2018-0359.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 23, dated
September 2017, of the Dassault Aviation Falcon 900 Maintenance
Manual.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000,
South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on August 30, 2018.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-19936 Filed 9-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P