[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5294-5300]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02064]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0515; FRL-9904-27]

Diflubenzuron; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
diflubenzuron (N-[[(4-chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2,6-
difluorobenzimide) in or on fruit, citrus, group 10-10 and citrus, oil.
Chemtura Corporation, requested these tolerances under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective January 31, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 1, 2014, 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: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0515, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Rossi, Registration Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 305-7090; email 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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. 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.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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-2012-0515 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
April 1, 2014. 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 (excluding any Confidential Business Information (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 the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0515, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of September 12, 2013 (78 FR 56185) (FRL-
9399-7), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
2F8015) by Chemtura Corporation,199 Benson Road, Middlebury, CT 06749.
The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.377 be amended by establishing
tolerances for residues of the insecticide diflubenzuron, (DFB) and its
metabolites 4-chlorophenylurea (CPU) and 4-chloroaniline (PCA), in or
on fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 3.0 parts per million (ppm), and
citrus, oil at 32.0

ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by
Chemtura Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the docket,
http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response
to the notice of filing.
    In conjunction with this rulemaking, EPA has updated the tolerance
expression to be consistent with the FFDCA. See Unit IV.D. EPA is also
removing the existing tolerances for grapefruit, orange, pummelo, and
tangerine that are made redundant by establishment of the crop group
tolerance for citrus.

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 FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), 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 diflubenzuron including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with diflubenzuron
follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    The acute oral, dermal and inhalation toxicity of diflubenzuron is
low. It is a mild eye irritant and not a skin irritant in laboratory
animals. It is negative for sensitization in the guinea pig. In
subchronic and chronic feeding studies, the primary endpoint of concern
was methemoglobinemia and/or sulfhemoglobinemia. These effects were
evident in both sexes of mice, rats, and dogs and were produced by more
than one route of administration in rats (i.e., oral, dermal and
inhalation). The general consequence of methemoglobinemia and/or
sulfhemoglobinemia is the impairment of the oxygen transportation
capacity of the blood, which is generally known to be caused by
aromatic amines in both humans and animals. Degradates of diflubenzuron
with aromatic amines, CPU and PCA, are also included in the
diflubenzuron non-cancer risk assessment. CPU, an analog of monuron,
does not effect methemoglobin formation but does produce tumors in the
liver and kidneys of male rats. The toxicity of PCA is well understood
with methemoglobin formation the primary systemic effect. PCA is
similar in potency to diflubenzuron on methemoglobin formation.
Therefore, the non-cancer assessment will include diflubenzuron, CPU
and PCA. Since the toxicity of CPU and PCA is well understood,
additional toxicity studies are not required.
    The toxicity data provide no indication of an increased
susceptibility to rats or to rabbits from in utero or postnatal
exposure to diflubenzuron. Developmental and reproduction studies in
rats and rabbits indicate a very low hazard potential for adverse
effects. Developmental studies were tested at the limit dose of 1,000
milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) without apparent effects in both
dams and the fetuses. The reproduction study indicated that effects in
offspring occurred at doses that were higher than the doses producing
effects in parents. The requirement for acute and subchronic
neurotoxicity studies were recently waived because there are no clear
signs of neurotoxicity following subchronic or chronic dosing in
multiple species in the diflubenzuron database. The toxicity profile of
diflubenzuron shows that the principal toxic effects are the formation
of methemoglobinemia and/or sulfhemoglobinemia in the blood. The
immunotoxicity study has been reviewed and immunotoxicity was not
observed above the limit dose.
    The Agency concluded that diflubenzuron is not carcinogenic in
humans based on lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and mice.
PCA, a plant metabolite of diflubenzuron, tested positive for splenic
tumors in male rats and hepatocellular adenomas/carcinomas in male mice
in a National Toxicology Program (NTP) study. Therefore, EPA has
treated PCA as a probable human carcinogen. CPU is the major degradate
found in water and is a significant metabolite in milk. CPU is
structurally related to monuron (N,N-dimethyl-CPU), a compound
producing tumors of the kidney and liver in male rats. EPA has assumed
CPU is a probable human carcinogen as well.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by diflubenzuron as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document, ``Diflubenzuron: Human Health Risk
Assessment for an Amended Section 3 Registration for the Expanded
Citrus Crop Group 10-10.'' in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0515.

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 the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified.
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.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for diflubenzuron used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 and 2 of this unit.

  Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Diflubenzuron for Use in Dietary Human Health Risk
                                                   Assessments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Study and
        Exposure/scenario                 POD          Uncertainty/ FQPA   RfD, PAD, LOC for     toxicological
                                                        safety factors      risk assessment         effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary all populations...  N/A...............  N/A...............  No appropriate endpoint attributable
                                                                           to single exposure was available
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary all populations.  NOAEL = 2 mg/kg/    UFA = 10X           cPAD = chronic RfD  Chronic dog study
                                   day.               UFH = 10X.........   FQPA SF = 0.02 mg/  00146174.
                                                      FQPA SF = 1X......   kg/day.            LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/
                                                                                day based on
                                                                                methemoglobinemia
                                                                                and
                                                                                sulfhemoglobinemi
                                                                                a.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (all routes)               Classification: ``Group E'' evidence of non- carcinogenicity for humans.
 Diflubenzuron.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (oral, dermal,             PCA ``Group B2''    N/A...............  NTP oral mouse study.
 inhalation).                      probably human
                                   carcinogen Q1*.
                                  1.12 x 10-1 (mg/kg/
                                   day)-1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (oral, dermal,             CPU Q1* based on    N/A...............  NTP oral rat study.
 inhalation).                      monuron a
                                   structural analog
                                   and the Q1* 1.52
                                   x 10-2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of Departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point that is derived from observed dose-response data
  and used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally
  relevant human exposures.
NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level. UF = uncertainty factor.
  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among
  members of the human population (intraspecies). FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. PAD =
  population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure. LOC = level
  of concern. N/A = not applicable.

 Table 2--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Diflubenzuron for Use in Residential and Occupational
                                          Human Health Risk Assessments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Level of concern        Study and
        Exposure/scenario                 POD            Uncertainty/          for risk          toxicological
                                                            factors           assessment            effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short- and intermediate-term      N/A...............  N/A...............  N/A...............  These endpoints
 incidental oral (1 day-6                                                                      were not
 months) (residential).                                                                        evaluated. There
                                                                                are no registered
                                                                                uses of
                                                                                diflubenzuron
                                                                                which result in
                                                                                significant
                                                                                residential
                                                                                exposure.
Short-term dermal (1-30 days)     NOAEL = 500 mg/kg/  UFA = 10X.........  LOC for MOE = 100.  21-day rat dermal
 (occupational).                   day.               UFH = 10X.........                      LOAEL = 1,000 mg/
                                                                                kg/day based on
                                                                                methemoglobinemia
                                                                                .
Dermal intermediate term (1-6     NOAEL = 2 mg/kg/    UFA = 10X.........  LOC for MOE = 100.  13--week oral dog
 months).                          day.               UFH = 10X.........                      LOAEL = 6.4 mg/kg/
                                                      dermal absorption:                       day based on
                                                       0.5%.                                   methemoglobinemia
                                                                                .
Inhalation short term (1-30       NOAEL = 0.109 mg/L  UFA = 10X.........  LOC for MOE = 100.  28-day Inhalation
 days).                           NOAEL = 20.30 \1\   UFH = 10X.........                       rat study.
                                   mg/kg/day.                                                 No effect at HDT
                                                                                \2\, 0.109 mg/L.
Inhalation intermediate term (1-  NOAEL = 0.109 mg/L  UFA = 10X.........  LOC for MOE = 100.  28-day Inhalation
 6 months).                       NOAEL = 20.30 \1\   UFH =10X..........                       rat study.
                                   mg/kg/day.                                                 No effect at HDT,
                                                                                0.109 mg/L.
Inhalation long term (1-6         NOAEL = 2 mg/kg/    UFA = 10X.........  LOC for MOE = 100.  Chronic dog study.
 months).                          day.               UFH = 10X.........                      LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/
                                                                                day based on
                                                                                methemoglobinemia
                                                                                and
                                                                                sulfhemoglobinemi
                                                                                a.
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (all routes).............  Classification: ``Group E'' evidence of non- carcinogenicity for humans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Conversion from mg/L to oral dose (mg/kg/day) = mg/L x absorption (1.0) x Respiratory Volume (Sprague-Dawley
  rats) for 6 hours/d x Duration of Exposure (5 d/week)/body weight x 7 d/week = 0.109 mg/L x 1.0 x (0.26(RV) x
  6 hrs) x 5 d/wk / 0.236 kg x 7 d/wk = 20.3 mg/kg/day (TXR 0050503).
\2\ Highest Dose Tested.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to diflubenzuron, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing diflubenzuron
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.377. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
diflubenzuron 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. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for diflubenzuron; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic non-cancer dietary
exposure assessment, EPA used the food consumption data from the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, ``What We Eat in America'' (NHANES/WWEIA) from 2003
through 2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA used the assumption
that diflubenzuron residues are present in most commodities at
tolerance levels (including tolerances previously established as well
as those established in this action) and that 100% of all crops are
treated. Average field trial residues were assumed for grapefruit,
lemon, and orange. Tolerances include residues of diflubenzuron, PCA,
and CPU.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that diflubenzuron does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
However, metabolites CPU and PCA are considered probable carcinogens
and have Q*s assigned to them. Individual cancer dietary exposure
analyses were conducted for each metabolite. For PCA, average percent
crop treated (PCT) was used for some commodities. One-half the Limit of
Quantitation (LOQ) was used for estimating PCA residues on the majority
of crops because most crops did not contain detectable residues of PCA.
Average field trial residue was used for mushrooms. The CPU cancer
dietary analysis focused on CPU residues in milk because metabolism
studies indicate that diflubenzuron metabolizes to CPU in milk. EPA
assumed that 100% of milk commodities contained CPU at \1/2\ the LOQ.
One-half the LOQ was used since detectable residues of CPU were not
found in the feeding study.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E)
of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the
anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual
levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA
relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section
408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is
established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels
in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action,
EPA will issue such Data Call-Ins as are required by FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be
required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of
issuance of these tolerances.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The Agency estimated the PCT for existing uses as follows: Almond
(10%), apricot (10%), artichoke (50%), cotton (1%), grapefruit (15%),
oranges (5%), peach (5%), peanut (5%), pear (5%), pecan (2.5%), peppers
(1%), rice (1%), soybeans (1%), tangerines (5%), and wheat (1%).
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from USDA/National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), proprietary market surveys, and
the National Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/crop combination
for the most recent 6 to 7 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic
dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is
derived by combining available public and private market survey data
for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to the
nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is
less than one. In those cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5%
is used as the maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary
risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum
value reported within the recent 6 years of available public and
private market survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the
nearest multiple of 5%.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations, including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of
food to which diflubenzuron may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for diflubenzuron in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of diflubenzuron. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models, the Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWC) of
12.8 microgram/Liter ([mu]g/L) (including diflubenzuron and CPU) was
used to assess chronic non-cancer dietary risk. CPU cancer risk was
assessed using the EDWC of 8.81 [mu]g/L.

    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).
    Although there are no registered homeowner uses, there are
registered uses for professional applications to outdoor trees and
ornamentals in residential areas. However, given the effects in the 21-
day dermal toxicity study were only observed at the limit dose (1,000
mg/kg/day) and the dermal absorption is extremely low (0.5%) as well as
the intermittent potential for post-application residential exposure to
ornamentals (i.e., contact with ornamentals every day is not likely), a
residential post-application assessment is not required at this time.
    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 diflubenzuron to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and diflubenzuron does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
diflubenzuron 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 Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) SF. In applying this provision, EPA either
retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional SF
when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Based on the available
developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and the reproduction
study, there is no increased susceptibility to fetuses exposed in
utero.
    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 toxicological database for diflubenzuron is complete. The
toxicity of CPU and PCA is well understood. CPU is less toxic and does
not affect methemoglobin. PCA does cause methemoglobin formation but is
similar in potency to diflubenzuron. Therefore, assuming equal toxicity
of CPU and PCA to diflubenzuron is health protective, additional
toxicity studies are not required.
    ii. There are no clear signs of neurotoxicity following subchronic
or chronic dosing in multiple species in the diflubenzuron database;
therefore, there is no need for any neurotoxicity studies.
    iii. There is no evidence that diflubenzuron results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. The dietary exposure assessment uses conservative assumptions
which will not underestimate dietary exposure and EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to diflubenzuron in drinking water. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
diflubenzuron.

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
aPAD and 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 MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
diflubenzuron is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
diflubenzuron from food and water will utilize 37% of the cPAD for
children 1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for diflubenzuron.
    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). A short-term
adverse effect was identified; however, diflubenzuron is not registered
for any use patterns that would result in short-term residential
exposure; therefore, no further assessment of short-term risk is
necessary.
    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). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
diflubenzuron is not registered for any use patterns that would result
in intermediate-term residential exposure; therefore, no further
assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, diflubenzuron is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
However, metabolites CPU and PCA are considered probable carcinogens
and have Q*s assigned to them. Individual cancer dietary exposure
analyses were conducted for each metabolite. The cancer assessment for
PCA includes food only (not present in drinking water). The cancer
assessment for CPU includes milk and water only. For PCA, the cancer
dietary exposure estimate for the U.S. population is 1 x
10-\6\. For CPU, the cancer dietary exposure estimate for
the U.S. population is 3 x 10-\6\.
    EPA generally considers cancer risks in the range of
10-\6\ or less to be negligible. The precision which can be
assumed for cancer risk estimates is best described by rounding to the
nearest integral order of magnitude on the log scale; for example,
risks falling between 3 x 10\-7\ and 3 x 10-\6\ are
expressed as risks in the range of 10-\6\. Considering the
precision with which cancer hazard can be estimated, the
conservativeness of low-dose linear

extrapolation, and the rounding procedure described above, cancer risk
should generally not be assumed to exceed the benchmark level of
concern of the range of 10-\6\ until the calculated risk
exceeds approximately 3 x 10-\6\. This is particularly the
case where some conservatism is maintained in the exposure assessment.
Although the PCA and CPU exposure risk assessment are refined, they
retain significant conservatism in that residues in food were estimated
at \1/2\ LOQ even though no residues were detected in field trials and
feeding studies, and for some commodities EPA assumed 100 PCT.
Accordingly, EPA has concluded the cancer risk for all existing
diflubenzuron uses, and the uses associated with the tolerances
established in this action fall within the range of 1 x
10-\6\ and are thus negligible.
    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 diflubenzuron residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography/electron
capture detection (ECD) and high-performance liquid chromatography/
ultraviolet (HPLC/UV)) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression.

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 United Nations
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 established MRLs for diflubenzuron, expressed in
terms of diflubenzuron per se, for many including: Citrus, fruits 0.5
ppm. This MRL is different than the citrus crop group tolerance being
established for diflubenzuron in this action.
    Numerical compatibility with Codex is not possible as the good
agricultural practices used for the Codex MRL are different from the
proposed use pattern in the U.S. Additionally, the tolerance expression
for the Codex MRL and the U.S. tolerance are not the same, only the
U.S. tolerance contains the CPU and PCA metabolites. EPA is re-
examining whether it can harmonize the U.S. tolerance expression with
the Codex MRL, but making this change alone would not harmonize the
numerical difference.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA is revising the tolerance expression to clarify that, as
provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers metabolites
and degradates of diflubenzuron not specifically mentioned; and that
compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by
measuring only the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance
expression. Therefore, the tolerance expression for diflubenzuron will
be revised under 40 CFR 180.377 (a)(1), (a)(2), and (b) (see the
regulatory text of this document).

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
diflubenzuron, (N-[[(4-chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2,6-
difluorobenzimide) in or on fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 3.0 ppm; and
citrus, oil at 32 ppm. The Agency is removing the currently established
tolerances for grapefruit, orange, pummel, and tangerine from 40 CFR
180.377. These tolerances are being replaced by the tolerance for
fruit, citrus, group 10-10.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
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 FFDCA section 408(d), 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 FFDCA section 408(n)(4). 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) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    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) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
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
the rule in the Federal

Register. This action 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: January 17, 2014.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, 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. In Sec.  180.377:
0
a. Revise the introductory text in paragraph (a)(1).
0
b. Remove ``Grapefruit'', ``Orange sweet'', and ``Tangerine'' from the
table in paragraph (a)(1).
0
c. Revise the introductory text in paragraph (a)(2).
0
d. Remove ``Pummelo'', from the table in paragraph (a)(2).
0
e. Add Citrus, oil, and Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 to the table in
paragraph (a)(2).
0
f. Revise the introductory text in paragraph (b).
    The amendments read as follows:

Sec.  180.377  Diflubenzuron; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) Tolerances are established for residues of
diflubenzuron, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified below is to be determined by measuring only diflubenzuron (N-
[[(4-chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2,6-difluorobenzamide).
* * * * *
    (2) Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide
diflubenzuron (N-[[(4-chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2,6-
difluorobenzamide), in or on the commodities in the table below.
Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be
determined by measuring only the sum of diflubenzuron (N-[[(4-
chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2,6-difluorobenzamide), 4-
chlorophenylyurea and 4-chloroaniline, calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of diflubenzuron, in or on the commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Citrus, oil.................................................          32

                                * * * * *
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10..................................         3.0

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

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time-limited tolerances are
established for residues of the insecticide diflubenzuron (N-[[(4-
chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2,6- difluorobenzamide) and its
metabolites, in connection with use of the pesticide under section 18
emergency exemptions granted by EPA. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of
diflubenzuron (N-[[(4-chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2,6-
difluorobenzamide), 4-chlorophenylyurea and 4-chloroaniline, calculated
as the stoichiometric equivalent of diflubenzuron, in or on the
commodity. The tolerances are specified in the following table, and
will expire and are revoked on the dates specified.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-02064 Filed 1-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 94)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 27788-27791]
[DOCID:fr14my08-27]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0182; FRL-8565-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1) 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002
Base-Year Inventory for the Susquehanna County Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a
SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan that provides for
continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) for at least 10 years after the April 30, 2004
designations, as well as a 2002 base-year inventory for

the Susquehanna County Area. EPA is proposing approval of the
maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory in accordance with
the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 13, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2008-0182 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0182, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air
Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2008-0182. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 either electronically in http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468,
400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 17, 2007, PADEP formally
submitted for approval, under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, a SIP
revision for the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year
inventory for the Susquehanna County Area.

I. Background

    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that states submit to EPA
plans to maintain the NAAQS promulgated by EPA. EPA interprets this
provision to require that areas that were maintenance areas for the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS, but attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, submit a
plan to demonstrate the continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
    On May 20, 2005, EPA issued guidance that applies to areas that are
designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The
purpose of this guidance is to address the maintenance requirements in
section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, and to assist the states in the
development of a SIP. The components from EPA's guidance include: (1)
An attainment emissions inventory, which is based on actual ``typical
summer day'' emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) for a 10-year maintenance period, from
a base-year chosen by the state; (2) a maintenance demonstration, which
demonstrates how the area will remain in compliance with the 8-hour
ozone standard for a period of 10 years following the effective date of
designation unclassifiable/attainment (June 15, 2004); (3) an ambient
air monitoring network, which will be in continuous operation in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 58 to verify maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone standard; (4) a contingency plan, that will ensure that in the
event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, measures will be
implemented as promptly as possible; and (5) a verification of
continued attainment, indicating how the state intends on tracking the
progress of the maintenance plan.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has requested approval of its 8-
hour ozone maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the
Susquehanna County Area. The PADEP 8-hour ozone maintenance plan
addresses the five components of EPA's May 20, 2005 guidance, which
pertains to the maintenance requirements in section 110(a)(1) of the
CAA.
    Attainment Emission Inventory: An attainment emissions inventory
includes emissions during the time period associated with the
monitoring data showing attainment. PADEP has provided an emissions
inventory for VOCs and NOX, using 2002 as the base-year from
which to project emissions. The 2002 inventory is consistent with EPA
guidance, is based on actual ``typical summer day'' emissions of VOCs
and NOX, and consists of a list of sources and their
associated emissions. PADEP prepared comprehensive VOCs and
NOX emissions inventories for the Susquehanna County Area.
In the maintenance plan, PADEP included information on the man-made
sources of ozone precursors, VOCs and NOX (e.g.,
``stationary sources,'' ``stationary area sources,'' ``highway
vehicles,'' and ``nonroad sources'').
    Pennsylvania projected emissions for beyond 10 years from the
effective date of the April 30, 2004 designations for the 8-hour ozone
standard. PADEP has developed an emissions inventory for ozone
precursors for the year 2002, 2009, and 2018. Tables 1 and 2 show the
VOCs and NOX emissions reduction summary for 2002, 2009, and
2018.

                              Table 1.--VOC Emissions Summary: 2002, 2009 and 2018
                                              [Tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Major source category                            2002            2009            2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Point Sources *......................................            0.00            0.00            0.00
Stationary Area Sources.........................................            6.21            6.15            6.92
Highway Vehicles................................................            3.17            1.71            1.00
Nonroad Sources.................................................            2.36            2.14            1.63
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................           11.74           10.00           9.55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Values are greater than zero. Values appear as zero due to rounding.

                              Table 2.--NOX Emissions Summary: 2002, 2009 and 2018
                                              [Tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Major source category                            2002            2009            2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Point Sources........................................            0.10            0.10            0.11
Stationary Area Sources.........................................            0.24            0.26            0.28
Highway Vehicles................................................            8.56            4.87            1.90
Nonroad Sources.................................................            1.37            1.16            0.85
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................           10.27            6.39            3.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the VOCs and
NOX emissions in the Susquehanna County Area will improve
due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIP, federal measures, and other state-adopted
measures.
    Maintenance demonstration: As Table 1 and 2 indicate, the
Susquehanna County Attainment Area plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS by demonstrating that future emissions of VOCs and
NOX remain at or below the 2002 base-year emissions levels
through the year 2018.
    Based upon the comparison of the projected emissions and the 2002
base-year inventory emissions, along federal and state measures, EPA
concludes that PADEP successfully demonstrates that the 8-hour ozone
standard will be maintained in the Susquehanna County Area. Further
details of Susquehanna County Attainment Area's 8-hour ozone
maintenance demonstration can be found in a Technical Support Document
(TSD) prepared for this rulemaking.
    Ambient Air Quality Monitoring: With regard to the ambient air
monitoring component of the maintenance plan, Pennsylvania commits to
continue operating its current air quality monitoring stations in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment status of the
area, with no reductions in the number of sites from those in the
existing network unless pre-approved by EPA.
    Contingency Plan: Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that the
state develop a contingency plan which will ensure that any violation
of a NAAQS is promptly corrected. The purpose of the contingency plan
is to adopt measures, outlined in the maintenance plan, in order to
assure continued attainment in the event of a violation of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The maintenance plan should identify the events that would
``trigger'' the adoption and implementation of a contingency
measure(s), the contingency measure(s) that would be adopted and
implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which the
state would adopt and implement the measure(s).
    Since the Susquehanna County Area does not have a monitor,
contingency measures will be considered if for two consecutive years
the fourth highest 8-hour ozone concentrations at the design monitor
for the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area are above 84 parts per billion
(ppb). If this trigger point occurs, PADEP will evaluate whether
additional local emission control measures should be implemented in
Susquehanna County in order to prevent a violation of the air quality
standard. PADEP will analyze the conditions leading to the excessive
ozone levels and evaluate what measures might be most effective in
correcting the excessive ozone levels. PADEP will also analyze the
potential emissions effect of federal, state, and local measures that
have been adopted but not yet implemented at the time the excessive
ozone levels occurred. PADEP will then begin the process of
implementing the contingency measures outlined in their maintenance
plan.
    Verification of continued attainment: PADEP will track the
attainment status of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Susquehanna County by
reviewing air quality at the design monitor for the Scranton-Wilkes-
Barre Area and emissions data during the maintenance period. An annual
evaluation of vehicle miles traveled and emissions reported from
stationary sources will be performed and compared to the assumptions
about the factors used in the maintenance plan. PADEP will also
evaluate the periodic (every three years) emission inventories prepared
under EPA's Consolidated Emission Reporting Regulation (40 CFR part 51,
subpart A) for any unanticipated increases. Based on these evaluations,
PADEP will consider whether any further emission control measures
should be implemented.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-
year inventory for the Susquehanna County Area, submitted on December
17, 2007, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing to
approve the maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the
Susquehanna County Area because it meets the requirements of section
110(a)(1) of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before
taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations.

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the
criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to
approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule to approve the maintenance plan and
the 2002 base-year inventory for the Susquehanna County Area in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 5, 2008.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E8-10809 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 51)]
[Notices]
[Page 12639-12640]
[DOCID:fr16mr07-103]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55436; File No. 4-429]

Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Summary Effectiveness on a
Temporary Basis of Joint Amendment No. 22 to the Plan for the Purpose
of Creating and Operating an Intermarket Option Linkage Relating to
Response Time for Certain Orders Sent Through the Linkage, and Notice
of Filing of Such Amendment

March 8, 2007.

I. Introduction

    On February 2, 2007, February 15, 2007, February 5, 2007, February
7, 2007, January 30, 2007, and February 13, 2007, the American Stock
Exchange LLC (``Amex''), the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE''), the
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''), the
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''), the NYSE Arca, Inc.,
and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'') (collectively,
``Participants''), respectively, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 608 thereunder \2\ an
amendment (``Joint Amendment No. 22'') to the Plan for the Purpose of
Creating and Operating an Intermarket Option Linkage (``Linkage
Plan'').\3\ In Joint Amendment No. 22, the Participants propose to
reduce (i) The amount of time a member must wait after sending a
Linkage Order \4\ to a market before the member can trade through that
market and (ii) the timeframe within which a Participant must respond
to a Linkage Order after receipt of that Order. This order summarily
puts into effect Joint Amendment No. 22 on a temporary basis not to
exceed 120 days and solicits comment on Joint Amendment No. 22 from
interested persons.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ On July 28, 2000, the Commission approved a national market
system plan for the purpose of creating and operating an intermarket
options market linkage (``Linkage'') proposed by Amex, CBOE, and
ISE. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43086 (July 28, 2000),
65 FR 48023 (August 4, 2000). Subsequently, Phlx, Pacific Exchange,
Inc. (n/k/a NYSE Arca, Inc.), and BSE joined the Linkage Plan. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 43573 (November 16, 2000), 65
FR 70851 (November 28, 2000); 43574 (November 16, 2000), 65 FR 70850
(November 28, 2000); and 49198 (February 5, 2004), 69 FR 7029
(February 12, 2004).
    \4\ See Section 2(16) of the Linkage Plan. For the purposes of
this Joint Amendment No. 22 only, references to ``Linkage Orders''
herein pertain to P/A Orders and Principal Orders. For definitions
of ``P/A Order'' and ``Principal Order,'' see note 6 infra.
    \5\ A proposed amendment may be put into effect summarily upon
publication of notice of such amendment, on a temporary basis not to
exceed 120 days, if the Commission finds that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection
of investors or the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to
remove impediments to, and perfect mechanisms of, a national market
system or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. See
17 CFR 242.608(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Amendment

    First, the purpose of Joint Amendment No. 22 is to reduce the
amount of time a member must wait after sending a Linkage Order to a
market before the member can trade through that market. The
Participants propose to decrease this time period from 20 seconds to 5
seconds.
    Second, Joint Amendment No. 22 will also reduce the time frame in
which a Participant must respond to a Linkage Order from 15 to 5
seconds after receipt of that Order. Because the Linkage is highly
automated and a Participant should receive a response to a Linkage
Order within seconds after it is sent, the Participants do not believe
it is necessary to wait the current 15 seconds for such a response. In
addition, especially in fast-moving markets like the options market,
the Participants believe that amending the time period to 5 seconds for
the rejection of a P/A

Order or Principal Order \6\ due to an untimely response will provide
an opportunity for the transmittal of responses while also allowing a
Participant's members to execute orders on their own exchanges in a
timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Section 2(16)(a) and (b) of the Linkage Plan,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
amendment to the Linkage Plan is consistent with the requirements of
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.\7\ Specifically, the
Commission finds that the proposed amendment to the Linkage Plan is
consistent with Section 11A of the Act \8\ and Rule 608 thereunder \9\
in that it is appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets.
Specifically, the Commission believes that reducing the time required
by a Participant to respond to a Linkage Order and the amount of time a
member sending a Linkage Order must wait before trading through a
nonresponsive Participant should facilitate the more timely execution
of orders across the options markets. In addition, the Commission finds
that it is appropriate to summarily put into effect Joint Amendment No.
22 upon publication of this notice on a temporary basis for 120 days.
The Commission believes that such action is appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair
and orderly markets, because it will facilitate implementation of the
Joint Amendment No. 22 in conjunction with the commencement of options
penny quoting pilot program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In summarily putting into effect this Joint Amendment No.
22, the Commission has considered its impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \9\ 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether proposed Joint
Amendment No. 22 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted
by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number 4-429 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number 4-429. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the
Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).

Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to proposed Joint Amendment No. 22 that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
proposed Joint Amendment No. 22 between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filings also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the Amex, BSE, CBOE, ISE, NYSE Arca, and Phlx. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number 4-429 and should be submitted
on or before April 6, 2007.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act \10\
and Rule 608(b)(4) thereunder,\11\ that Joint Amendment No. 22 is
summarily put into effect until July 16, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \11\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(4).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12 \
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E7-4783 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: June 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 118)]
[Notices]
[Page 33998]
[DOCID:fr20jn07-78]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

June 13, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1545-003.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.
    Description: Alabama Power Company et al. submit a response to
FERC's Staff's Deficiency Letter.
    Filed Date: 05/29/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070613-0094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 19,2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-544-001.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits its compliance filing pursuant to
the Commission 4/10/07 letter order.
    Filed Date: 04/25/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070425-5029.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-974-001.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Wisconsin Electric Power Company submits an errata its
Wholesale Distribution Service Agreement with the City of Norway,
Michigan.
    Filed Date: 06/12/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070612-5048.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 03, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1018-000.
    Applicants: SIG Energy, LLLP.
    Description: SIG Energy, LLLP submits a notice of succession
informing that it has succeeded to the market-based rate tariff of
Susquehanna Energy Products, LLC.
    Filed Date: 06/08/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070612-0192.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 29, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1019-000 ER07-1020-000; ER07-1021-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Niagara Mohawk Power Corp dba National Grid submits an
unexecuted interconnection agreements based on the New York Independent
System Operator Standard Large Generator Interconnection Agreement.
    Filed Date: 06/08/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070612-0193.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 29, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1022-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC submits an amendment to its
FERC Electric, Fourth Revised Volume 3, to become 6/7/07.
    Filed Date: 06/08/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070612-0191.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 29, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER96-719-017; ER97-2801-017; ER99-2156-011.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp; Cordova Energy Company LLC; MidAmerican
Energy Company.
    Description: Cordova Energy Company LLC et al. provides a notice of
change in status under market-based rate authority pursuant to section
35.27(c) of the Commission's Regulations.
    Filed Date: 06/08/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070612-0218.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 29, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH07-19-000.
    Applicants: Macquarie Infrastructure Company LLC.
    Description: Macquarie Infrastructure Company LLC submits an
Exemption Notification.
    Filed Date: 06/12/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070611-5090.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 03, 2007.

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

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

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-11878 Filed 6-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 44 (Friday, March 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 12212]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05371]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Discovery Oil, Ltd., I/O Magic Corporation,
Maydao Corporation, NX Global, Inc, and SensiVida Medical Technologies,
Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

March 4, 2015.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Discovery Oil, Ltd. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended September 30, 2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
I/O Magic Corporation because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended September 30, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Maydao Corporation because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended September 30, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
NX Global, Inc because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended October 31, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
SensiVida Medical Technologies, Inc. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended May 31, 2011.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended
for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on March 4, 2015, through 11:59 p.m.
EDT on March 17, 2015.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-05371 Filed 3-4-15; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6023-6026]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2678]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0038; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-209-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A300 B4-600 series airplanes and Model A310-203, -204, -
221, and -222 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a
capacitive density condensator (cadensicon) coil overheating during
testing. This proposed AD would require an inspection to determine if a
certain fuel quantity indication computer (FQIC) is installed,
replacement of identified FQICs, and modification of the associated
wiring. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct potential
overheating of the cadensicon coil, which could create an ignition
source inside a fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel
vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of
the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE.,

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS--EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0038;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-209-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2011-0186, dated September 23, 2011 (referred
to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    In view to address the scope of Special Federal Aviation
Regulation 88 (SFAR 88) (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001) and the
equivalent JAA Internal Policy INT/POL/25/12, a safety analysis of
Fuel Quantity Indication Computers (FQIC) fitted to Wide Body
aeroplanes has been performed.
    Detailed analysis has shown that on early standard FQIC, Type 1,
there is an insufficient gap on the printed circuit board between a
115V [volt] supply and a direct path to the Capacitive Density
Condensator (Cadensicon).
    During tests that were carried out applying 115V to the
Cadensicon coil, measured temperature levels were in excess of the
acceptable level of 200 [deg]C. This potential overheating of the
Cadensicon coil could be a possible ignition point within the fuel
tank.
    This condition, if left uncorrected, could create an ignition
source in the tank vapour space, possibly resulting in a wing fuel
tank explosion and consequent loss of the aeroplane.
    For the reasons explained above, this [EASA] AD requires the
replacement of all Type 1 FQICs with Type 2 FQICs.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.
    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a
regulation titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review,
Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements''
(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards
for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule
included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88,''
Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001) requires
certain type design (i.e., type certificate (TC) and supplemental type
certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems
can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement
applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport
airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It
requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes
and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel
tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we
intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found
necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these
reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of
operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable
conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address
the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in
combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure
experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included
consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for
further action.
    The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) has issued a regulation that
is similar to SFAR 88 (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). (The JAA is an
associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC)
representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of
European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and
implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures.) Under
this regulation, the JAA stated that all members of the ECAC that hold
type certificates for transport category airplanes are required to
conduct a design review against explosion risks.
    We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are
necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel
tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result
in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletins A300-28-6024,
Revision 02, dated January 19, 2011; and A310-28-2039, Revision 01,
dated January 19, 2011. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information

referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all
pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 53 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $200 per product. Where the
service information lists required parts costs that are covered under
warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts.
As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some
parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $37,630, or $710 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2012-0038; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-
209-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 23, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and
B4-622 airplanes, and Model A310-203, -204, -221, and -222
airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial
numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a capacitive density
condensator (cadensicon) coil overheating during testing. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct potential overheating of the
cadensicon coil, which could create an ignition source inside a fuel
tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result
in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Actions

    Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect to
determine whether any fuel quantity indication computer (FQIC) Type
1, having part number (P/N) SIC5054 or P/N SIC5051 (as applicable to
the airplane model), is installed, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A300-28-6024, Revision 02, dated January 19, 2011; or Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2039, Revision 01, dated January
19, 2011; as applicable. A review of airplane maintenance records is
acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the FQIC
can be conclusively determined from that review. If any FQIC Type 1
having P/N SIC5054 or P/N SIC5051 is installed, within 30 months
after the effective date of this AD, replace the FQIC Type 1 with a
FQIC Type 2 having P/N SIC5055, P/N SIC5076, P/N SIC5082, or P/N
SIC5083 (as applicable to Model A310 series airplanes) or with a
FQIC Type 2 having P/N SIC5077 (as applicable to Model A300 B4-600
series airplanes), and modify the associated wiring, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service
Bulletin A300-28-6024, Revision 02, dated January 19, 2011; or
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2039, Revision 01, dated
January 19, 2011; as applicable.

(h) Parts Installation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install any
FQIC Type 1 having P/N SIC5054 or P/N SIC5051, on any airplane.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(j) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2011-0186, dated September 23, 2011, and the service
information specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD,
for related information.
    (1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-28-6024, Revision 02,
dated January 19, 2011.
    (2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2039, Revision 01,
dated January 19, 2011.

    Issued in Renton, Washington on January 12, 2012.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-2678 Filed 2-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P