[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 77 (Friday, April 20, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23625-23630]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9447]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1018; FRL-9340-5]

Quizalofop Ethyl; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
quizalofop ethyl in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. This regulation additionally removes
established tolerances on canola seed and canola meal, as they will be
superseded by new tolerances. Finally, this regulation removes several
time-limited tolerances, as they have expired. Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances, under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective April 20, 2012. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 19, 2012, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1018. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Nollen, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the
harmonized test guidelines referenced in this document electronically,
please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ``Test Methods and
Guidelines,'' which is listed under ``Documents related to our
mission.''

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-2010-1018 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 June 19, 2012. Addresses for
mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided
in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1018, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerances

    In the Federal Register of February 25, 2011 (76 FR 10584) (FRL-
8863-3), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition, PP
0E7802, by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ
08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.441 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide quizalofop ethyl,
ethyl-2-[4-(6-chloroquinoxalin-2-yl oxy)phenoxy]propanoate, including
its metabolites and degradates, in or on rapeseed subgroup 20A, except
flax, seed at 1.0 parts per million (ppm); gold of pleasure, meal at
1.5 ppm; crambe, meal at 1.5 ppm; sorghum, grain at 0.2 ppm; sorghum,
forage at 0.2 ppm; sorghum, stover at 0.35 ppm; and sorghum, aspirated
grain at 1.0 ppm. The petition additionally requested that EPA amend
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.441 by removing the established tolerance for
canola, seed at 1.0 ppm from the table in paragraph (a)(3), as the
individual tolerance will be superseded by inclusion in rapeseed
subgroup 20A, except flax, seed. The petition also proposed to remove
the tolerances in Sec.  180.441(a)(4), as these tolerances expired on
June 14, 1999.
    The petition, PP 0E7802, also proposed to amend 40 CFR 180.441 by
combining the tables for sections (a)(1) and (a)(3) into one table
under section (a)(1), and by removing section (a)(3). It further
proposed to revise the tolerance expression under section (a)(1). The
petition, PP 0E7802, additionally proposed to revise the tolerance
expression under section (a)(2).
    Finally, PP 0E7802 proposed to revise the tolerance expression
under section (c). That notice referenced a summary of the petition
prepared on behalf of IR-4 by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, the
registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petitions, EPA has
revised the proposed tolerance level and/or commodity definition for
several commodities. The Agency has also removed the established
tolerance on canola, meal, as the data were used to establish a
tolerance on rapeseed meal, the preferred commodity terminology. The
reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue * *
*.''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for quizalofop ethyl
including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this
action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
quizalofop ethyl 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.
    Quizalofop ethyl has low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and
inhalation routes of exposure. It is not an eye or dermal irritant nor
a skin sensitizer. The liver has been identified as the target organ,
as evidenced by increased liver weights and histopathological changes
in the liver. There were no effects observed in the oral toxicity
studies that could be attributable to a single-dose exposure and no
observed toxicity in a subchronic dermal toxicity study in rabbits.
Following subchronic oral exposures, decreased body weight gains,
increased liver weight and centrilobular liver cell enlargement were
noted in rats, and an increased incidence of testicular atrophy was
noted in dogs. A combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in
rats noted an increased incidence of centrilobular enlargement of the
liver in both sexes and mild anemia in males. No treatment-related
effects on brain weight or histopathology of the nervous system were
observed in studies that measured those endpoints.
    In developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, maternal
effects, including decreased body weight gains and food consumption,
were noted at a level that did not result in developmental effects. In
the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, maternal effects including
decreased body weight and body weight gains were noted at the same dose
level that resulted in prenatal and postnatal effects (decreased
percentage of pups born alive and decreased pup weights).
    Carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice disclosed no more than
very limited data suggestive of a potential for carcinogenic risk. No
evidence of carcinogenicity was seen in female mice and in male or
female rats. Liver tumors were found in male mice. However,

these tumors were seen only at an excessive dose, occurred at low
incidence, showed marginal statistical significance at the high dose
(no dose response), and were not accompanied with corroborative pre-
neoplastic lesions. Further, liver tumors are common and occur with a
high degree of variability in male mice. In addition, mutagenicity
studies conducted on quizalofop ethyl did not demonstrate evidence of
mutagenic potential. Consequently, there is no concern for the
carcinogenicity following exposure to quizalofop ethyl.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by quizalofop ethyl 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: ``Quizalofop-P-ethyl: Human Health
Risk Assessment for New Uses on Sorghum, Rapeseed Crop Group 20 A, and
Field Corn,'' at pp. 33-34 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1018.

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 to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for quizalofop ethyl used
for human risk assessment is shown in the Table of this unit.

     Table --Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Quizalofop Ethyl for Use in Human Health Risk
                                                   Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Point of departure and
         Exposure/scenario              uncertainty/safety   RfD, PAD, LOC for risk    Study and toxicological
                                             factors                assessment                 effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (All populations)....   No appropriate endpoint was identified. There were no effects observed in
                                       oral toxicity studies that could be attributed to a single-dose exposure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)..  NOAEL = 0.9 mg/kg/day.  Chronic RfD = 0.009 mg/ Chronic toxicity/
                                     UFA = 10x.............   kg/day.                 Carcinogenicity study in
                                     UFH = 10x.............  cPAD = 0.009 mg/kg/      rats. LOAEL = 3.7 mg/kg/
                                     FQPA SF = 1x..........   day..                   day based on increased
                                                                                incidence of centrilobular
                                                                                enlargement of the liver
                                                                                in both sexes and mild
                                                                                anemia in males.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)..                    No concern as to human carcinogenicity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Mg/kg/day= milligrams/kilograms/day.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to quizalofop ethyl, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing quizalofop ethyl
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.441. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
quizalofop ethyl 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 quizalofop ethyl;
therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is
unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). As
to residue levels in food, EPA incorporated tolerance-level residues
and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all commodities.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that there is no concern with regard to carcinogenicity.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is not needed.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment
for quizalofop ethyl. Tolerance level residues and/or 100 PCT were
assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for quizalofop ethyl in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of quizalofop ethyl. 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.
    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 (EDWCs) of
quizalofop ethyl for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are
estimated to be 2 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 1.29
ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the

water concentration of value 2 ppb was used to assess the contribution
to drinking water.
    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). Quizalofop ethyl is
not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found quizalofop ethyl to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and quizalofop ethyl does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For
the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
quizalofop ethyl 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 cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The quizalofop ethyl
toxicity database is adequate to evaluate potential increased
susceptibility of infants and children, and includes developmental
toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and a 2-generation reproduction
study in rats. In developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits,
maternal effects, including decreased body weight gains and food
consumption, were noted (100 mg/kg/day for rats and 60 mg/kg/day for
rabbits) in the absence of developmental effects. In the 2-generation
reproduction study in rats, maternal effects (decreased body weight and
body weight gains) were noted at 20 mg/kg/day, the same dose level that
resulted in prenatal and postnatal effects (decreased percentage of
pups born alive and decreased pup weights).
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for quizalofop ethyl is complete except
for acute and subchronic neurotoxicity testing. Recent changes to 40
CFR part 158 imposed new data requirements for acute and subchronic
neurotoxicity testing (OPPTS Guideline 870.6200) for pesticide
registration. HED has determined from available studies in the
quizalofop ethyl toxicity database that quizalofop does not have
specific neurotoxicity. More specifically, there were no treatment-
related effects on brain weight or histopathology of the nervous system
seen in studies that measured these endpoints. There was no evidence of
effects on functional development observed in a postnatal segment of
the reproduction study in rats. In addition, quizalofop ethyl does not
belong to a chemical class that is considered neurotoxic. Although
clinical signs possibly indicative of neurotoxicity were seen, they
were only observed at high doses and, even then, were rare. The
requested acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies are expected to
confirm that there are no indications of neurotoxicity. Therefore, EPA
does not believe that conducting acute and subchronic neurotoxicity
studies will result in a NOAEL less than the chronic NOAEL of 0.9 mg/
kg/day already set for quizalofop ethyl. Based on the information in
this unit, EPA has also determined that there is no need for a
developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for
neurotoxicity.
    ii. There is no evidence that quizalofop ethyl 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.
    iii. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The chronic dietary exposure assessments were performed
based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues, and EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water
modeling used to assess exposure to quizalofop ethyl in drinking water.
These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed
by quizalofop ethyl.

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,
quizalofop ethyl 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
quizalofop ethyl from food and water will utilize 29% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for quizalofop ethyl.
    3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Because no short- or
intermediate-term adverse effect was identified, quizalofop ethyl is
not expected to pose a short- or intermediate-term risk.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the
information described in Unit III.A., there is no concern for human
carcinogenicity.
    5. 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 quizalofop ethyl residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (Morse Method Meth-147, a high

performance liquid chromatography method) is available to enforce the
tolerance expression for plant commodities. The method may be requested
from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center,
701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-
2905; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

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

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based on analysis of the residue field trial data supporting the
petitions, EPA revised the proposed tolerances on rapeseed subgroup
20A, except flax, seed from 1.0 ppm to 1.5 ppm; sorghum, grain, stover
from 0.35 ppm to 0.30 ppm; crambe, meal from 1.5 ppm to 2.0 ppm; and
gold of pleasure, meal from 1.5 ppm to 2.0 ppm. The Agency revised
these tolerance levels based on analysis of the residue field trial
data using the Agency's Tolerance Spreadsheet in accordance with the
Agency's Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field Trial
Data.
    Based on available canola processing data, a tolerance for canola,
meal was previously established at 1.5 ppm. Using the available canola
processing data, EPA has recommended a tolerance for gold of pleasure,
meal; and crambe, meal at 2.0 ppm, by adjusting for the proposed
application rate. As such, the previously established tolerance on
canola, meal at 1.5 ppm was also revised to 2.0 ppm, and EPA is
revising the commodity definition for canola, meal to rapeseed, meal in
order to reflect the correct commodity terminology. Therefore, EPA
determined that a tolerance should be established on rapeseed, meal at
2.0 ppm, and the established tolerance on canola, meal at 1.5 ppm
should be removed.
    The Agency also revised several other proposed and established
commodity definitions to reflect the correct terminology, as follows:
Bean, dry to bean, dry seed; sorghum, grain to sorghum, grain, grain;
sorghum, forage to sorghum, grain, forage; sorghum, stover to sorghum,
grain, stover; sorghum, aspirated grain to sorghum, grain, aspirated
grain fractions; and soybean to soybean, seed.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of quizalofop
ethyl, ethyl-2-[4-(6-chloroquinoxalin-2-yl oxy)phenoxy]propanoate, in
or on crambe, meal at 2.0 ppm; gold of pleasure, meal at 2.0 ppm;
rapeseed, meal at 2.0 ppm; rapeseed, subgroup 20A, except flax, seed at
1.5 ppm; sorghum, grain, grain at 0.20 ppm; sorghum, grain, forage at
0.20 ppm; sorghum, grain, stover at 0.30 ppm; and sorghum, grain,
aspirated grain fractions at 1.0 ppm. This final rule additionally
removes the established tolerances for canola, seed at 1.0 ppm; and
canola, meal at 1.5 ppm. This regulation also deletes time-limited
tolerances for quizalofop ethyl on beet, sugar, molasses at 0.2 ppm;
beet, sugar, roots at 0.1 ppm; beet, sugar, tops at 0.5 ppm; vegetable,
foliage of legume, except soybean, subgroup 7A at 3.0 ppm; and
vegetable, legume, group 6 at 0.25 ppm, as the tolerances expired on
June 14, 1999. Finally, this final rule revises the tolerance
expression to clarify:
    1. That, as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance
covers metabolites and degradates of quizalofop ethyl not specifically
mentioned; and
    2. That compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be
determined by measuring only the specific compounds mentioned in the
tolerance expression.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of

the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA
will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
this final rule in the Federal Register. This final rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: April 11, 2012.
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. Section 180.441 is amended as follows:
0
i. Revise paragraph (a)(1);
0
ii. Revise paragraph (a)(2) introductory text;
0
iii. Remove paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4); and
0
iv. Revise paragraph (c) introductory text.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  180.441  Quizalofop ethyl; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) Tolerances are established for residues of the
herbicide quizalofop ethyl, including its metabolites and degradates,
in or on the commodities in the following table. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified in the following table is to be determined
by measuring only those quizalofop ethyl residues convertible to 2-
methoxy-6-chloroquinoxaline, expressed as the stoichiometric equivalent
of quizalofop ethyl, in or on the commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barley, grain...........................................            0.05
Barley, hay.............................................            0.05
Barley, straw...........................................            0.05
Bean, dry, seed.........................................            0.4
Bean, succulent.........................................            0.25
Beet, sugar, molasses...................................            0.2
Beet, sugar, roots......................................            0.1
Beet, sugar, tops.......................................            0.5
Cotton, undelinted seed.................................            0.1
Cowpea, forage..........................................            3.0
Cowpea, hay.............................................            3.0
Crambe, meal............................................            2.0
Flax, seed..............................................            0.05
Gold of pleasure, meal..................................            2.0
Lentil, seed............................................            0.05
Pea, dry................................................            0.25
Pea, field, hay.........................................            3.0
Pea, field, vines.......................................            3.0
Pea, succulent..........................................            0.3
Peppermint, tops........................................            2.0
Rapeseed, meal..........................................            2.0
Rapeseed subgroup 20A, except flax, seed................            1.5
Sorghum, grain, aspirated grain fractions...............            1.0
Sorghum, grain, forage..................................            0.20
Sorghum, grain, grain...................................            0.20
Sorghum, grain, stover..................................            0.30
Soybean, flour..........................................            0.5
Soybean, hulls..........................................            0.02
Soybean, meal...........................................            0.5
Soybean, seed...........................................            0.05
Soybean, soapstock......................................            1.0
Spearmint, tops.........................................            2.0
Sunflower, seed.........................................            1.9
Wheat, forage...........................................            0.05
Wheat, grain............................................            0.05
Wheat, hay..............................................            0.05
Wheat, straw............................................            0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide
quizalofop ethyl, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on
the commodities in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified in the following table is to be determined by
measuring only those quizalofop ethyl residues convertible to
quizalofop (2-[4-(6-chloroquinoxalin-2-yl-oxy)phenoxy]propanoic acid),
expressed as quizalofop, in or on the commodity.
* * * * *
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. Tolerances with
regional registration are established for residues of the herbicide
quizalofop ethyl, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on
the commodities in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified in the following table is to be determined by
measuring only those quizalofop ethyl residues convertible to 2-
methoxy-6-chloroquinoxaline, expressed as the stoichiometric equivalent
of quizalofop ethyl, in or on the commodity.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-9447 Filed 4-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 15, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 219)]
[Notices]
[Page 69363-69364]
[DOCID:fr15no05-92]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 1-15781]

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application of Berkshire Hills
Bancorp, Inc. To Withdraw Its Common Stock, $.01 Par Value, From
Listing and Registration on the American Stock Exchange LLC

November 8, 2005.
    On October 20, 2005, Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (``Issuer''), filed an application with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 12d2-2(d)
thereunder,\2\ to withdraw its common stock, $.01 par value
(``Security''), from listing and registration on the American Stock
Exchange LLC (``Amex'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(d).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 27, 2005, the Board of Directors (``Board'') of the Issuer
approved a resolution to withdraw the Security from listing and
registration on Amex and to list the Security on the Nasdaq National
Market (``Nasdaq''). The Issuer stated that the Board believes it is in
the best interests of the Issuer and its shareholders to move the
Security from listing on Amex to Nasdaq because Nasdaq will provide the
Issuer with the opportunity to increase its exposure among investors
and improve the liquidity of the Security.
    The Issuer stated in its application that it has met the
requirements of Amex Rule 18 by complying with all applicable laws in
effect in the state of Delaware, in which it is incorporated, and by
providing written notice of withdrawal to Amex.
    The Issuer's application relates solely to withdrawal of the
Security from listing on the Amex and from registration under section
12(b) of the Act,\3\ and shall not affect its obligation to be
registered under section 12(g) of the Act.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested person may, on or before December 5, 2005, comment
on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in
accordance with the rules of Amex, and what terms, if any, should be
imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment
letters may be submitted by either of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

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

the File Number 1-15781; or

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number 1-15781. This file
number should be included on the subject line

if e-mail is used. To help us 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/delist.shtml
). Comments are also available for public inspection

and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. All comments
received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly.
    The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will
issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above,
unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6267 Filed 11-14-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 183 (Thursday, September 20, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47568-47569]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20389]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0061; FRL-9983-83--Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; Washington; Interstate Transport Requirements
for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation
Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that
will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On
February 7, 2018, the State of Washington made a submittal to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements for
the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA
is approving the submittal as meeting the requirement that each SIP
contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.

DATES: This final rule is effective October 22, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0061. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and is publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

I. Background Information

    On July 23, 2018, the EPA proposed to approve Washington as meeting
the requirement that each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit
emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state
(83 FR 34813). An explanation of the Clean Air Act requirements, a
detailed analysis of the submittal, and the EPA's reasons for proposing
approval were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and will
not be restated here. The public comment period for the proposal ended
August 22, 2018.

II. Response to Comments

    We received several anonymous comments unrelated to Washington's
submission. After reviewing the anonymous comments, we have determined
that the comments are outside the scope of our proposed action and fail
to identify any material issue necessitating a response. For more
information, please see our memorandum included in the docket for this
action.

III. Final Action

    The EPA is approving Washington's February 7, 2018, submittal
certifying that the SIP is sufficient to meet the interstate transport
requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015
ozone NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act
and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because actions such as SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
     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 this action does not involve technical standards; and
     does not provide the 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land and
is also not approved to apply in any other area where the EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those
areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action 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. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by November 19, 2018. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: September 5, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart WW--Washington

0
2. In Sec.  52.2470, table 2 in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the
entry for ``Interstate Transport for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS'' immediately
below the entry for ``Interstate Transport for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2470   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                Table 2--Attainment, Maintenance, and Other Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Applicable geographic        State
     Name of SIP provision        or nonattainment area   submittal date   EPA approval date     Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Interstate Transport for the     Statewide..............        2/7/2018  9/20/2018, [Insert  This action
 2015 Ozone NAAQS.                                                         Federal Register    addresses CAA
                                                                           citation].          110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I
                                                                                ).

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

[FR Doc. 2018-20389 Filed 9-19-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 105 (Thursday, June 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 29765]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11667]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1981-044]

Oconto Electric Cooperative; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Application Type: Application for Temporary Variance of
Reservoir Elevation Requirements.
    b. Project No: P-1981-044.
    c. Date Filed: November 16, 2020.
    d. Applicant: Oconto Electric Cooperative (licensee).
    e. Name of Project: Stiles Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Oconto River in Oconto
County, Wisconsin.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Kent A. Lyng, Engineer, Oconto Electric
Cooperative, P.O. Box 168, 7479 REA Road, Oconto, WI 54154, Phone:
(920) 846-2816 extension 1017.
    i. FERC Contact: Mark Pawlowski,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: June 10, 2021.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should
include the docket number P-77-306. Comments emailed to Commission
staff are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee (or Oconto) requests a 5-
foot temporary variance of the minimum impoundment elevation of the
Stiles impoundment (Machickanee Flowage) required by Article 401 of the
project license. Article 401 requires the licensee maintain a minimum
impoundment elevation of 623.2 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
The purpose of the variance is to reduce invasive plant growth and
improve fish habitat. Article 402 of the license requires that any
scheduled maintenance impoundment drawdowns below the minimum elevation
required by Article 401 must not occur during April, May, and June to
protect near-shore fish spawning and nursery activities. The proposed
5-foot drawdown is scheduled to begin in July 2021.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: May 27, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-11667 Filed 6-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 41012]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18237]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RD16-10-000, RD17-5-000, and IC17-6-000 (FERC-725E)]

Errata Notice

    On August 15, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice of revised
information collection and request for comments on FERC-725E (Mandatory
Reliability Standards for the Western Electric Coordinating Council),
in Docket Nos. RD16-10-000, RD17-5-000, and IC17-6-000. This Errata
Notice corrects multiple figures on page 13, in the table labeled FERC-
725E, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Western Electric
Coordinating Council, Changes in Docket No. RD17-5-000.
    All of the changes described here occur in two separate rows under
the column labeled Total Annual Burden Hours & Total Annual Cost ($)
(3)*(4)=(5).: The entry in the row labeled Net Burden Change in Year 1
(Due to Docket RD17-5) should be changed from +252 hrs. (increase) to
+252 hrs.; $2,993.40 (increase). The entry in the row labeled Net
Burden Change in Year 2 and ongoing (Due to Docket RD17-5) should be
changed from the -621 hrs. (decrease) to +873 hrs.; $53,884.47
(increase).

    Dated: August 22, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18237 Filed 8-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 148)]
[Notices]
[Page 45682-45683]
[DOCID:fr03au10-131]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62573; File No. 4-533]

Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
of Amendment to the National Market System Plan for the Selection and
Reservation of Securities Symbols To Add EDGA Exchange, Inc. and EDGX
Exchange, Inc., Each as a Party Thereto

July 26, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 7, 2009, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'') and EDGX Exchange,
Inc. (``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') an amendment to the National Market System Plan for
the Selection and Reservation of Securities Symbols (``Symbology Plan''
or ``Plan'').\3\ The amendment proposes to add EDGA and EDGX, each as a
party to the Symbology Plan. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed amendment from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(3).
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ On November 6, 2008, the Commission approved the Symbology
Plan that was originally proposed by the Chicago Stock Exchange,
Inc. (``CHX''), The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (``Nasdaq''), National
Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'') (n/k/a Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'')), National Stock
Exchange, Inc. (``NSX''), and Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``Phlx''), subject to certain changes. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 58904, 73 FR 67218 (November 13, 2008) (File No. 4-533).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description and Purpose of the Amendment

    The current parties to the Symbology Plan are BATS Exchange, Inc.
(``BATS''), NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BSE''), Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''), CHX, FINRA, the International
Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''), Nasdaq, New York Stock Exchange LLC
(``NYSE''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE
Amex'') (f/k/a ``NYSE Alternext US LLC'' (``NYSE Alternext'')), NSX and
Phlx.\4\ The proposed amendment to the Symbology Plan would add EDGA
and EDGX, each as a party to the Symbology Plan. A self-regulatory
organization (``SRO'') may become a party to the Symbology Plan if it
satisfies the requirements of Section I(c) of the Plan. Specifically,
an SRO may become a party to the Symbology Plan if: (i) It

maintains a market for the listing or trading of Plan Securities \5\ in
accordance with rules approved by the Commission, which securities are
identified by one, two, or three character symbols, on the one hand, or
four or five character symbols, on the other hand, in each case prior
to any suffix or special conditional identifier; (ii) it signs a
current copy of the Plan; and (iii) it pays to the other parties a
proportionate share of the aggregate development costs, based upon the
number of symbols reserved by the new party during the first twelve
(12) months of such party's membership.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On November 18, 2008, ISE filed with the Commission an
amendment to the Plan to add ISE as a member to the Plan. See
Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 59024 (November 26, 2008),
73 FR 74538 (December 8, 2008) (File No. 4-533). On December 22,
2008, NYSE, NYSE Arca, and NYSE Alternext (``NYSE Group Exchanges'')
and CBOE filed with the Commission amendments to the Plan to add the
NYSE Group Exchanges and CBOE as members to the Plan. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 59162 (December 24, 2008), 74 FR 132
(January 2, 2009) (File No. 4-533). On December 24, 2008, BSE filed
with the Commission an amendment to the Plan to add BSE as a member
to the Plan. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59187 (December
30, 2008), 74 FR 729 (January 7, 2009) (File No. 4-533). On
September 30, 2009, BATS filed with the Commission an amendment to
the Plan to add BATS as a member to the Plan. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 60856 (October 21, 2009), 74 FR 55276
(October 27, 2009) (File No. 4-533).
    \5\ ``Plan Securities'' are defined in the Symbology Plan as
securities that: (i) Are NMS securities as currently defined in Rule
600(a)(46) under the Act; and (ii) any other equity securities
quoted, traded and/or trade reported through an SRO facility.
    \6\ Sections I(c) and V(a) of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EDGA and EDGX have submitted a signed copy of the Symbology Plan to
the Commission in accordance with the requirement set forth in the
Symbology Plan regarding new parties to the plan.

II. Effectiveness of the Proposed Symbology Plan Amendment

    The foregoing proposed Symbology Plan amendment has become
effective pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(iii) \7\ because it involves
solely technical or ministerial matters. At any time within sixty days
of the filing of the amendment, the Commission may summarily abrogate
the amendment and require that it be refiled pursuant to paragraph
(b)(1) of Rule 608,\8\ if it appears to the Commission 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 the mechanisms of, a national market system
or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(3)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the amendment 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 4-533 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number 4-533. 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 the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change 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 Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business days
between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will
be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of EDGA
and EDGX. 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
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number 4-533
and should be submitted on or before August 24, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-18935 Filed 8-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28618-28619]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10279]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:
    Docket Numbers: EG20-149-000.
    Applicants: Minco Wind I, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Minco Wind I, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/6/20.
    Accession Number: 20200506-5248.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/20.

    Docket Numbers: EG20-150-000.
    Applicants: Ponderosa Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Ponderosa Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/6/20.
    Accession Number: 20200506-5249.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/20.

    Docket Numbers: EG20-151-000.
    Applicants: Sky Global Power Two LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of EWG Status of Sky
Global Power Two LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/6/20.
    Accession Number: 20200506-5250.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1890-002.
    Applicants: MATL LLP.
    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 845 Compliance Filing
Amendment ER19-1890 to be effective 5/22/2019.
    Filed Date: 5/7/20.
    Accession Number: 20200507-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1452-001.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Resubmit 2020 TACBAA Update to be
effective 6/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/7/20.
    Accession Number: 20200507-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1777-000.
    Applicants: Jersey Central Power & Light Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedules and
Agreements Yards Creek to be effective 7/5/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/6/20.
    Accession Number: 20200506-5216.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/27/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1778-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of NTTG Funding
Agreement to be effective 4/30/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/7/20.
    Accession Number: 20200507-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1779-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ALLETE,
Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-05-07_SA 3326 MP-BPU
1st Rev T-T (Brainerd) to be effective 5/8/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/7/20.
    Accession Number: 20200507-5025.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1780-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-05-07_SA 3488 MDU-MDU
GIA (R1000) to be effective 4/23/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/7/20.
    Accession Number: 20200507-5038.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1781-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Bulldog Solar (Bulldog Solar
I) LGIA Filing to be effective 4/24/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/7/20.
    Accession Number: 20200507-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1782-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions Regarding Make
Whole Payments and Minimum Run Time to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/7/20.
    Accession Number: 20200507-5116.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/28/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings

must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but
intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 7, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-10279 Filed 5-12-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 2189]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00491]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93933; File No. SR-NYSE-2021-40]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed
Rule Change To Adopt on a Permanent Basis the Pilot Program for Market-
Wide Circuit Breakers in Rule 7.12

January 7, 2022.

I. Introduction

    On July 2, 2021, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposal to make its rules governing the operation of the Market-Wide
Circuit Breakers (``MWCB'') mechanism permanent. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on July 22,
2021.\3\ On August 27, 2021, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to
either approve the proposed rule changes, disapprove the proposed rule
changes, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove
the proposed change.\5\ On September 30, 2021, the Commission initiated
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule changes.\6\ The Commission has received no comments on the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92428 (July 16,
2021), 86 FR 38776.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92785A, 86 FR 50202
(September 7, 2021).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93212, 86 FR 55066
(October 5, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \7\ provide that, after instituting
proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving or
disapproving a proposed rule change not later than 180 days after the
date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule change.\8\
The Commission may, however, extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change by not more than 60
days if the Commission determines that a longer period is appropriate
and publishes the reasons for such determination.\9\ The 180th day for
the proposed rule change is January 18, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B)(ii)(II)(aa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 180-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds it appropriate
to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving
or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time
to consider the proposed rule change, including the sufficiency of the
proposal's ongoing assessment provisions.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ designates March 19, 2022 as the date by which the Commission
shall either approve or disapprove the proposed rule change (File No.
SR-NYSE-2021-40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-00491 Filed 1-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 3, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31886-31888]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12691]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0329; Notice No. 25-14-03-SC]

Special Conditions: Bombardier Aerospace, Models BD-500-1A10 and
BD-500-1A11 Series Airplanes; Tire Debris Impacts to Fuel Tanks

AGENCY:  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:  Notice of proposed special conditions.

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

SUMMARY:  This action proposes special conditions for the Bombardier
Aerospace Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes. These
airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with
the use of carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) for most of the wing
fuel tank structure, which, when impacted by tire debris, may resist
penetration or rupture differently from aluminum wing skins. The
applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed
special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:  Send your comments on or before July 18, 2014.

ADDRESSES:  Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-0329
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/ gov/.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Margaret Langsted, FAA, Propulsion
and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington, 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing
date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the
comments we receive.

Background

    On December 10, 2009, Bombardier Aerospace applied for a type
certificate for their new Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series
airplanes (hereafter collectively referred to as ``CSeries''). The
CSeries airplanes are swept-wing monoplanes with an aluminum alloy
fuselage sized for 5-abreast seating. Passenger capacity is designated
as 110 for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 125 for the Model BD-500-1A11.
Maximum takeoff weight is 131,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A10 and
144,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A11.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.17, Bombardier Aerospace must show that the CSeries airplanes
meet the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-
1 through 25-129 thereto.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the CSeries airplanes because of a
novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed
under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also
apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the CSeries airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and
exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a
finding of regulatory adequacy under Sec.  611 of Public Law 92-574,
the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-
certification basis under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The CSeries airplanes will incorporate the following novel or
unusual design features: The use of carbon fiber reinforced plastic
(CFRP) for most of the wing fuel tank structure. The ability of
aluminum wing skins to resist penetration or rupture when impacted by
tire debris is understood from extensive experience, but the ability of
CFRP construction to resist these hazards has not been established.
There are no existing regulations that adequately establish a level of
safety with respect to the performance of the composite materials used
in the construction of wing fuel tanks. It requires the consideration
of fuel tank penetration, fuel leaks, discrete source damage tolerance,
and the effects of shock waves generated by tire debris impact.

Discussion

    Accidents have resulted from uncontrolled fires caused by fuel
leaks following penetration or rupture of the lower wing by fragments
of tires or from uncontained engine failure. The Concorde accident in
2000 is the most notable example. That accident demonstrated an
unanticipated failure mode in an airplane with an unusual transport
airplane configuration. Impact to the lower wing surface by tire debris
induced pressure waves within the fuel tank that resulted in fuel
leakage and fire. Regulatory authorities subsequently required
modifications to the Concorde to improve impact resistance of the lower
wing or means to retain fuel if the primary fuel retention means is
damaged.
    In another incident, a Boeing Model 747 tire burst during an
aborted takeoff from Honolulu, Hawaii. That tire debris penetrated a
fuel tank access cover, causing substantial fuel leakage. Passengers
were evacuated down the emergency chutes into pools of fuel that
fortunately had not ignited.
    These accidents highlight deficiencies in the existing regulations
pertaining to fuel retention following impact of the fuel tanks by tire
fragments. Following a 1985 Boeing Model 737 accident in Manchester,
England, in which a fuel tank access panel was penetrated by engine
debris, the FAA amended 14 CFR 25.963 to require fuel tank access
panels that are resistant to both tire and engine debris (engine debris
is addressed elsewhere). This regulation, Sec.  25.963(e), only
addressed the fuel tank access covers since service experience at the
time showed that the lower wing skin of a conventional, subsonic
airplane provided adequate inherent capability to resist tire and
engine debris threats. More specifically, that regulation requires
showing by analysis or tests that the access covers ``. . . minimize
penetration and deformation by tire fragments, low energy engine
debris, or other likely debris.'' Advisory Circular (AC) 25.963-1, Fuel
Tank Access Covers, describes the region of the wing that is vulnerable
to impact damage from these sources and provides a method to
substantiate that the rule has been met for tire fragments. No specific
requirements were established for the contiguous wing areas into which
the access covers are installed, because of the inherent ability of
conventional aluminum wing skins to resist penetration by tire debris.
AC 25.963-1 specifically notes, ``The access

covers, however, need not be more impact resistant than the contiguous
tank structure,'' highlighting the assumption that the wing structure
is more capable of resisting tire impact debris than fuel tank access
covers.
    In order to maintain the level of safety envisioned by 14 CFR
25.963(e), these special conditions propose a standard for resistance
to potential tire debris impacts to the contiguous wing surfaces and
require consideration of possible secondary effects of a tire impact,
such as the induced pressure wave that was a factor in the Concorde
accident. It takes into account that new construction methods and
materials will not necessarily yield debris resistance that has
historically been shown as adequate. The proposed standard is based on
the defined tire impact areas and tire fragment characteristics.
    In addition, despite practical design considerations, some uncommon
debris larger than that defined in paragraph 2 may cause a fuel leak
within the defined area, so paragraph 3 of these proposed special
conditions also takes into consideration possible leakage paths. Fuel
tank surfaces of typical transport airplanes have thick aluminum
construction in the tire debris impact areas that is tolerant to tire
debris larger than that defined in paragraph 2 of these special
conditions. Consideration of leaks caused by larger tire fragments is
needed to ensure that an adequate level of safety is provided.
    These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 (CSeries) airplanes. Should Bombardier
Aerospace apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to
include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design
feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general
applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Proposed Special Conditions

    Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the
following special conditions as part of the type certification basis
for Bombardier Aerospace BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 (CSeries)
airplanes.

Tire Debris Impacts to Fuel Tanks

    1. Impacts by tire debris to any fuel tank or fuel system component
located within 30 degrees to either side of wheel rotational planes may
not result in penetration or otherwise induce fuel tank deformation,
rupture (for example, through propagation of pressure waves), or
cracking sufficient to allow a hazardous fuel leak. A hazardous fuel
leak results if debris impact to a fuel tank surface causes a--
    a. Running leak,
    b. Dripping leak, or
    c. Leak that, 15 minutes after wiping dry, results in a wetted
airplane surface exceeding 6 inches in length or diameter.
    The leak must be evaluated under maximum fuel head pressure.
    2. Compliance with paragraph 1 must be shown by analysis or tests
assuming all of the following:
    a. The tire debris fragment size is 1 percent of the tire mass.
    b. The tire debris fragment is propelled at a tangential speed that
could be attained by a tire tread at the airplane flight manual
airplane rotational speed (VR at maximum gross weight).
    c. The tire debris fragment load is distributed over an area on the
fuel tank surface equal to 1\1/2\ percent of the total tire tread area.
    3. Fuel leaks caused by impact from tire debris larger than that
specified in paragraph 2, from any portion of a fuel tank or fuel
system component located within the tire debris impact area defined in
paragraph 1, may not result in hazardous quantities of fuel entering
any of the following areas of the airplane:
    a. Engine inlet,
    b. Auxiliary power unit inlet, or
    c. Cabin air inlet.
    This must be shown by test or analysis, or a combination of both,
for each approved engine forward thrust condition and each approved
reverse thrust condition.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 15, 2014.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-12691 Filed 6-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 55 (Friday, March 21, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15676]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05897]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0093; Airspace Docket No. 14-AWP-1]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of VOR Federal Airway V-625, Arizona

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This action makes an editorial change to the legal description
of VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airway V-625 to reverse the
order of points listed in the route description. This action is simply
to comply with the standard format for describing routes. The existing
alignment of the airway is not affected by this action.

DATES: Effective Dates: 0901 UTC, May 29, 2014. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy and
Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Current format guidelines for airway and route legal descriptions
require that the order of points in a description be listed from
``west-to-east'' or from ``south-to-north,'' as applicable. The
description for V-625 lists the points from ``north-to-south.'' This
rule simply reverses the order of the points listed in Order 7400.9X to
a ``south-to-north'' format for standardization.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by reversing the order of points listed in the legal
description of VOR Federal airway V-625. This is only an editorial
change to comply with the standard route description format. The change
does not alter the current alignment of V-625 and the airway track is
correct on aeronautical charts.
    Since this action merely involves an editorial change in the legal
description of VOR Federal airway V-625 to standardize the format, and
does not involve a change in the dimensions or operating requirements
of the affected route, I find that notice and public procedures under 5
U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it is merely an editorial change of the legal description of V-625
to comply with existing administrative format procedures.
    Domestic VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of
FAA Order 7400.9X, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15,
2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR
Federal airway listed in this document will be published subsequently
in the Order.

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15,
2013, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal airways.
* * * * *

V-625 [Amended]

    From the INT of the United States/Mexican border and the
Nogales, AZ, 154[deg] radial; to Nogales.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 11, 2014.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2014-05897 Filed 3-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P