UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

	OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDE

	AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 MEMORANDUM

Date:  1/7/2009

SUBJECT:  Cyhalofop-butyl.  Chronic Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) Exposure Analysis for the Section 3 Registration Action

PC Code:  082583	DP Number:  358391

Decision No.:  391343	Registration No.:  62719-356

Petition No.:  8E7341	Regulatory Action:  Section 3

Risk Assessment Type:  Single Chemical/Aggregate 	Case No.:  None

TXR No.:  None	CAS No.:  122008-85-9

MRID No.:   None	40 CFR:  180.576

FROM:  	Douglas Dotson, Ph.D., Chemist

	Registration Action Branch II

	Health Effects Division (7509P)  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

THROUGH:	Thurston Morton, Chemist

		Anant Parmar, Biologist

		HED Dietary Exposure SAC

		Richard Loranger, Ph.D., Senior Scientist

	Registration Action Branch II

Health Effects Division (7509P)  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

TO:		Sidney Jackson/Dan Rosenblatt, RM Team 05

		RIMUERB

		Registration Division (7505P)

Executive Summary

A chronic aggregate dietary (food and drinking water) exposure and risk assessment was conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model DEEM-FCID™, Version 2.03 which uses food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) from 1994-1996 and 1998.  The analysis was performed to support the establishment of a tolerance for wild rice and re-establishment of the expired tolerance for rice grain.

Acute Dietary Exposure Results and Characterization

No toxic effects attributable to a single (i.e., acute) exposure to cyhalofop-butyl have been identified.  As a result, an acute reference dose (RfD) was not established for this chemical and an acute dietary exposure assessment was not conducted.

Chronic Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) Exposure Results and Characterization

A chronic dietary (food and drinking water) exposure and risk assessment was conducted for cyhalofop-butyl using tolerance level residues, a conservative estimate of residues in drinking water, and 100% crop treated assumptions.  Cyhalofop-butyl exposure from the existing use on rice and the proposed use on wild rice results in an estimated risk equivalent to 4.5% of the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) for the U.S. population.  The most highly exposed population subgroup is All Infants (<1 year old), whose risk utilizes 15% of the cPAD.

Cancer Dietary Exposure Results and Characterization

In accordance with the EPA Final Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (March 29, 2005), cyhalofop-butyl is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”  As a result, a cancer dietary exposure assessment was not performed.

I.	Introduction

Dietary risk assessment incorporates both exposure and toxicity of a given pesticide.  For acute and chronic assessments, the risk is expressed as a percentage of a maximum acceptable dose (i.e., the dose which HED has concluded will result in no unreasonable adverse health effects).  This dose is referred to as the population adjusted dose (PAD).  The PAD is equivalent to the point of departure (PoD, NOAEL, LOAEL, e.g.) divided by the required uncertainty or safety factors.

For acute and non-cancer chronic exposures, HED is concerned when estimated dietary risk exceeds 100% of the PAD.  HED is generally concerned when estimated cancer risk exceeds one in one million.  References that discuss the acute and chronic risk assessments in more detail are available on the EPA/pesticides web site:  “Available Information on Assessing Exposure from Pesticides, A User’s Guide,” 21-JUN-2000, web link:      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/July/Day-12/6061.pdf"  http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/July/Day-12/6061.pdf  ; or see SOP 99.6 (20-AUG-1999).

The most recent dietary risk assessment for cyhalofop-butyl was conducted by M. Doherty (Memo, D282194, 4/9/2002).

II.	Residue Information

Food Residues

For cyhalofop-butyl, the residues of concern for risk assessment purposes are the combined residues of parent and its acid and diacid metabolites.  Tolerances for residues of cyhalofop-butyl are established under 40CFR §180.576.  Tolerances are currently established for cyhalofop-butyl and its acid and diacid metabolites in/on two commodities only:  rice grain at 0.03 ppm and rice straw at 8.0 ppm.  These tolerances were time-limited and expired on 6/1/2007.  IR-4 has requested that the rice field trial data be translated to wild rice, and that a tolerance be established for rice, wild, grain, at 0.03 ppm.  Although rice grain and straw are animal feed items, residues are not likely to occur in animal commodities.  As a result, tolerances have not been established for animal commodities and none are included in the dietary exposure analysis.

Drinking Water Residues

The estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) used in the dietary risk assessment were provided by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) in the following memorandum: “Drinking Water Assessment for the Proposed Section 3 Registration of Cyhalofop-butyl for New Uses on Wild Rice Grown in California” (D357419, K. White, 10/17/2008).  The EDWC was incorporated directly into this dietary assessment into the food categories “water, direct, all sources” and “water, indirect, all sources.”

A standard model has been developed to estimate surface water concentrations from use of pesticides on rice, the Tier I Rice Model.  The model was modified to account for possible aerobic aquatic degradation and aquatic dissipation over time, and used to estimate surface water concentrations in water released from the rice paddy (tail water).  Estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) in groundwater were modeled using Tier I SCIGROW (version 2.3, dated July 29, 2003).  EDWCs represent exposure to total residues of cyhalofop-butyl, cyhalofop-acid, and cyhalofop-diacid, with the assumption that cyhalofop-butyl and cyhalofop-acid could be present in the R or S form or as a mixture of the enantiomers.  Cyhalofop-butyl and its degradates were not detected in surface water and drinking water monitoring studies conducted in California where rice is grown.  The chronic groundwater and surface water EDWCs are 0.152 and 21 ppb, respectively.  As the surface water value was the higher of the two, it was used in the chronic dietary exposure analysis.

The residue values (food and drinking water) are included in Attachment 1, Chronic Residue Input File.

III.	Percent Crop Treated Information

The assumption was made that both rice and wild rice would be treated to a level of 100%.

DEEM-FCID™ Program and Consumption Information

The cyhalofop-butyl chronic dietary exposure assessment was conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database DEEM-FCID™, Version 2.03 which incorporates consumption data from USDA’s Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII), 1994-1996 and 1998.  The 1994-96, 98 data are based on the reported consumption of more than 20,000 individuals over two non-consecutive survey days.  Foods “as consumed” (e.g., apple pie) are linked to EPA-defined food commodities (e.g. apples, peeled fruit - cooked; fresh or N/S; baked; or wheat flour - cooked; fresh or N/S, baked) using publicly available recipe translation files developed jointly by USDA/ARS and EPA.  For chronic exposure assessment, consumption data are averaged for the entire U.S. population and within population subgroups, but for acute exposure assessment are retained as individual consumption events.  Based on analysis of the 1994-96, 98 CSFII consumption data, which took into account dietary patterns and survey respondents, HED concluded that it is most appropriate to report risk for the following population subgroups: the general U.S. population, all infants (<1 year old), children 1-2, children 3-5, children 6-12, youth 13-19, adults 20-49, females 13-49, and adults 50+ years old.

For chronic dietary exposure assessment, an estimate of the residue level in each food or food-form (e.g., orange or orange juice) on the food commodity residue list is multiplied by the average daily consumption estimate for that food/food form to produce a residue intake estimate.  The resulting residue intake estimate for each food/food form is summed with the residue intake estimates for all other food/food forms on the commodity residue list to arrive at the total average estimated exposure.  Exposure is expressed in mg/kg body weight/day and as a percent of the cPAD.  This procedure is performed for each population subgroup.

V.	Toxicological Information

HED’s Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee (HIARC) and FQPA Safety Factor Committee met to determine the appropriate doses and endpoints for cyhalofop-butyl for use in human health risk assessments (HIARC: Doc. No. 014650, 8/10/2001; FQPA: Doc. No. 014655, 8/28/2001).  The FQPA Safety Factor Committee evaluated the available hazard and exposure data for cyhalofop-butyl and concluded that the FQPA safety factor of 10x should be reduced to 1x in assessing the risk posed by this chemical.  The risk assessment team currently evaluating the proposed use on wild rice has re-evaluated the toxicity data for cyhalofop-butyl and is in agreement with the previous conclusions concerning the toxicity endpoints and FQPA Safety Factor determination.  HED’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee evaluated mode of action data for cyhalofop-butyl.  In accordance with the EPA Final Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (March 29, 2005), the Committee classified cyhalofop-butyl as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” (Memo, TXR No. 0054798, J. Kidwell, 12/20/2007).

The cyhalofop-butyl dietary endpoints are summarized in Table 1, below.

Table 1.  Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Cyhalofop-butyl

for Use in Dietary Risk Assessments

Exposure/

Scenario	Point of Departure	Uncertainty/

FQPA Safety Factors

RfD/PAD	Study and Toxicological Effects

Acute Dietary

(All Populations)

No appropriate endpoint attributable to a single dose was available in the current database.  Therefore, an acute RfD was not established for the general U.S. population or any population subgroup.

Chronic Dietary

(All Populations)	NOAEL = 1.0 mg/kg/day

	UFA = 10x

UFH = 10x

FQPA SF = 1x

	Chronic RfD =  0.010 mg/kg/day

Chronic PAD = 0.010 mg/kg/day	Carcinogenicity study in mice (MRID 45000418). Kidney effects in females including tubular dilatation, chronic glomerulonephritis, and hyaline casts at the LOAEL of 10.06/10.28 mg/kg/day, M/F

Cancer

Classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” in accordance with the EPA Final Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (March 29, 2005).

Point of Departure (PoD) = A data point or an estimated point that is derived from observed dose-response data and used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally relevant human exposures.  NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level.  LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level.  UF = uncertainty factor.  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies).  UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).  FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor.  PAD = population adjusted dose.  RfD = reference dose.

VI.	Results/Discussion

PAD.  The DEEM-FCID™ analyses estimate the dietary exposure of the U.S. population and various population subgroups.  The results reported in Table 2 are for the general U.S. Population, all infants (<1 year old), children 1-2, children 3-5, children 6-12, youth 13-19, females 13-49, adults 20-49, and adults 50+ years.

Results of Acute Dietary Exposure Analysis

A toxic effect attributable to a single exposure was not seen in the available toxicology database for cyhalofop-butyl; therefore, an acute dietary risk assessment is not required.

Results of Chronic Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) Exposure Analysis

The chronic dietary exposure and risk estimates for the general U.S. population and all population subgroups are below 100% of the cPAD.  The most highly exposed subgroup is All Infants (<1 year old), whose risk utilizes 15% of the cPAD.  The general U.S. population risk utilizes 4.5% of the cPAD.  The detailed results from the chronic dietary exposure and risk assessment are summarized in Table 2, below.

Results of Cancer Dietary Exposure Analysis

HED’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee classified cyhalofop-butyl as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” in accordance with the EPA Final Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (March 29, 2005).  As a result, a cancer dietary exposure analysis was not performed.

Table 2.  Summary of Dietary Exposure and Risk for Cyhalofop-butyl

(Food and Drinking Water)

Population Subgroup*

Acute Dietary

(95th Percentile)

Chronic Dietary

Cancer

Dietary Exposure (mg/kg/day)

% aPAD

Dietary Exposure

(mg/kg/day)

% cPAD

Dietary Exposure

(mg/kg/day)

Risk

General U.S. Population	N/A

	N/A

0.000451	4.5

N/A

N/A

All Infants (< 1 year old)

0.001473	15

Children 1-2 years old

0.000675	6.7

Children 3-5 years old

0.000630	6.3

Children 6-12 years old

0.000435	4.4

Youth 13-19 years old

0.000328	3.3

Adults 20-49 years old

0.000422	4.2

Adults 50+ years old

0.000440	4.4

Females 13-49 years old

0.000419	4.2

VII.	Characterization of Inputs/Outputs

HED conducted an unrefined dietary risk assessment for cyhalofop-butyl.  The assessment assumes that all commodities with cyhalofop-butyl tolerances (i.e., rice and wild rice) contain residues of cyhalofop-butyl at the tolerance level.  In addition, a conservative estimate of residues in drinking water was used in the assessment.  Based on the conservative inputs into the analysis, it is highly unlikely that the assessment will underestimate chronic dietary exposure of the general U.S. population or any population subgroup.

Additional refinements, including the use of percent crop treated information and monitoring data for rice, could be incorporated into the assessment.  However, as risk estimates are not of concern, a more highly refined assessment is not needed at this time.

VIII.	Conclusions

A chronic dietary exposure and risk assessment was conducted for the proposed and existing food uses of cyhalofop-butyl.  The risk estimates for the general U.S. population and all population subgroups are below HED’s level of concern.

List of Attachments

1.  Cyhalofop-butyl  Chronic Residue Input File

2.  Results of Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis

Attachment 1:  Cyhalofop-butyl Chronic Residue Input File

DEEM/FCID Version 2.03

Chronic NOAEL: 1.0 mg/kg bw/day

Chronic Population Adjusted Dose (cPAD):  0.01 mg/kg bw/day

Filename: C:\Documents and Settings\ddotson\My Documents\DEEMFCID\Cyhalofop\Cyhalofop.R98

Date created/last modified: 11-19-2008/10:22:07/8

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

  EPA    Crop                                   Def Res     Adj.Factors   Comment

  Code    Grp  Commodity Name                    (ppm)       #1    #2

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

15003230 15   Rice, white                        0.030000   1.000  1.000

15003231 15   Rice, white-babyfood               0.030000   1.000  1.000

15003240 15   Rice, brown                        0.030000   1.000  1.000

15003241 15   Rice, brown-babyfood               0.030000   1.000  1.000

15003250 15   Rice, flour                        0.030000   1.000  1.000

15003251 15   Rice, flour-babyfood               0.030000   1.000  1.000

15003260 15   Rice, bran                         0.030000   1.000  1.000

15003261 15   Rice, bran-babyfood                0.030000   1.000  1.000

15004050 15   Wild rice                          0.030000   1.000  1.000

86010000 O    Water, direct, all sources         0.021000   1.000  1.000

86020000 O    Water, indirect, all sources       0.021000   1.000  1.000

Attachment 2:  Results of Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis

DEEM-FCID Version 2.03  (1994-98 data)

Chronic NOAEL = 1.0 mg/kg bw/day

Chronic PAD = 0.01 mg/kg bw/day

Residue File name: C:\Documents and Settings\ddotson\MyDocuments

	\DEEMFCID\Cyhalofop\Cyhalofop.R98

Analysis Date 11-19-2008/10:35:41     Residue file dated: 11-19-2008/10:22:07/8

======================================================================== =======

                    Total exposure by population subgroup

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

                                                    Total Exposure

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

          Population                         mg/kg             Percent of

           Subgroup                       body wt/day             Rfd

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

U.S. Population (total)                     0.000451                 4.5%

U.S. Population (spring season)             0.000447                 4.5%

U.S. Population (summer season)             0.000484                 4.8%

U.S. Population (autumn season)             0.000436                 4.4%

U.S. Population (winter season)             0.000436                 4.4%

Northeast region                            0.000414                 4.1%

Midwest region                              0.000454                 4.5%

Southern region                             0.000428                 4.3%

Western region                              0.000519                 5.2%

Hispanics                                   0.000518                 5.2%

Non-hispanic whites                         0.000437                 4.4%

Non-hispanic blacks                         0.000429                 4.3%

Non-hisp/non-white/non-black                0.000582                 5.8%

All infants (< 1 year)                      0.001473                14.7%

Nursing infants                             0.000553                 5.5%

Non-nursing infants                         0.001823                18.2%

Children 1-6  yrs                           0.000634                 6.3%

Children 7-12 yrs                           0.000412                 4.1%

Females 13-19 (not preg or nursing)         0.000318                 3.2%

Females 20+ (not preg or nursing)           0.000448                㐠㔮ഥ敆慭敬⁳㌱㔭‰特⁳†††††††††††† †⸰〰㐰㘳††††††††㐠㐮ഥ敆慭敬⁳㌱瀨敲 ⽧潮⁴畮獲湩⥧†††††††⸰〰㐰ㄴ†††††† ††㐠㐮ഥ敆慭敬⁳㌱渨牵楳杮
†††††††† †††⸰〰㘰㈲††††††††㘠㈮ഥ

萏֠萑褐葞֠葠褐摧㞥

ༀᄄᒄㇻĤ葞Ӭ葠ﬔ摧䰾Ä

h¥7

h¥7

h¥7

h¥7

h¥7

h¥7

h¥7

h¥7

h¥7

h¥7

h¥7

%

?

Z

[

‡

¦

Ý

à

$

%

'

3

5

>

?

Z

[

o

v

†

‡

ˆ

£

¥

Å

!Å

Æ

Ú

Û

Ü

ã

å

ó

ô

@

#

ó

#

ó

$

@

œ

摧捙6

œ

瑹㔮T

h²

摧┐Õ欀坤

摧┐Õ欀ᑤ

h²

h²

 h¦

h²

h²

&

@

&

@

hÆ

hÆ

 h¦

Males 13-19 yrs                             0.000335                 3.4%

Males 20+ yrs                               0.000405                 4.1%

Seniors 55+                                 0.000439                 4.4%

Children 1-2 yrs                            0.000675                 6.7%

Children 3-5 yrs                            0.000630                 6.3%

Children 6-12 yrs                           0.000435                 4.4%

Youth 13-19 yrs                             0.000328                 3.3%

Adults 20-49 yrs                            0.000422                 4.2%

Adults 50+ yrs                              0.000440                 4.4%

Females 13-49 yrs                           0.000419                 4.2%

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

Cyhalofop-butyl	          Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessment	           DP Number: 358391

PC Code:  082583

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  9


TO: File
FROM: Mike Gordon
THRU: Marcos Aquino
DATE: 8/15/2017
                        TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR:

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 62

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0453; FRL-        ]

Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; City of Philadelphia; Control of Emissions from Existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerator Units

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

RELATED ACTIONS: Proposed rule and direct final rule.

I.  Background
Sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA require submittal of plans to control certain pollutants (designated pollutants) at existing solid waste combustor facilities (designated facilities) whenever standards of performance have been established under section 111(b) for new sources of the same source category and the EPA has established emission guidelines for such existing sources.  When designated facilities are located in a state, the state must then develop and submit a plan for the control of the designated pollutant.  Subpart B of 40 CFR part 60 establishes procedures to be followed and requirements to be met in the development and submission of state plans for controlling designated pollutants from designated facilities under sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA.  Also, Subpart A of 40 CFR part 62 provides the procedural framework for
the submission of these plans.

If a state fails to submit a satisfactory plan, the CAA provides the EPA the authority to prescribe a plan for regulating the designated pollutants at the designated facilities. The EPA prescribed plan, also known as a federal plan, is often delegated to states with designated facilities but no EPA approved state-specific plan.  If no such designated facilities exist within a state's jurisdiction, a state may submit to the EPA a letter of certification to that effect (referred to as a negative declaration) in lieu of a state plan to satisfy the state's obligation. 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06.  A negative declaration exempts the state from the requirement to submit a CAA section 111(d)/section 129 plan for that designated pollutant and source category.  40 CFR 60.23(b).

II. Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators
On October 6, 2009 (74 FR 51368), EPA promulgated HMIWI unit new source performance standards, 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec, and emission guidelines, subpart Ce.  These regulations were amended in an April 4, 2011 final rule (76 FR 18407).

The designated facilities to which the EG apply are existing HMIWI units that: 1) Commenced construction on or before June 20, 1996, or for which modification was commenced on or before March 16, 1998; or 2) commenced construction after June 20, 1996 but no later than
December 1, 2008, or for which modification commenced after March 16, 1998 but no later than April 6, 2010, with limited exceptions as provided in paragraphs 40 CFR 60.32e(b) through (h).

As discussed above, if there are no designated facilities in the state, the state may submit a negative declaration in lieu of a state plan.  If any subsequently identified existing HMIWI unit is found in a state that had submitted a negative declaration, the Federal plan implementing the emission guidelines for subpart Ce would automatically apply to that HMIWI unit until a state plan is approved.

III.  State Submittals and EPA Analysis
The City of Philadelphia through the Department of Public Health, Air Management Services in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia AMS) has determined that there are no HMIWI units subject to CAA 111(d)/129 requirements in their respective jurisdictional boundaries.  Accordingly, Philadelphia AMS has submitted to EPA a negative declaration letter certifying this fact on August 2, 2011.  This negative declaration letter is in the docket for this action and are available online at www.regulations.gov.

EPA is amending 40 CFR part 62 to reflect the receipt of the negative declaration letter from the Philadelphia AMS.  EPA accepts this negative declaration as meeting the requirements in 40 CFR 60.23(b).  Amendments are being made to 40 CFR part 62, subparts NN (Pennsylvania).  With respect to subpart NN, this action is only applicable to the City of Philadelphia air pollution control agency's jurisdiction; it does not include the remaining geographical areas in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 148 (Tuesday, August 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50757-50759]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18202]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78424; File No. SR-ISE Gemini-2015-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Order
Disapproving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 804(g)

July 27, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On November 12, 2015, ISE Gemini, LLC (``ISE Gemini'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to require Clearing Member \3\ approval for a
market maker \4\ to resume trading after the activation of a market-
wide speed bump under ISE Gemini Rule 804(g). The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on November 30,
2015.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ A ``Clearing Member'' is a Member that is self-clearing or
an Electronic Access Member that clears Exchange Transactions for
other Members of the Exchange. See ISE Gemini Rule 100(a)(8). An
``Electronic Access Member'' is an Exchange Member that is approved
to exercise trading privileges associated with EAM Rights. See
Article XIII, Section 13.1(j) of the Constitution of ISE Gemini,
LLC.
    \4\ ISE Gemini has two categories of market makers: Primary
Market Makers (``PMMs'') and Competitive Market Makers (``CMMs''). A
PMM is appointed to each options class traded on the Exchange, but a
CMM may or may not be appointed to each such options class. See ISE
Gemini Rule 802.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76505 (November 23,
2015), 80 FR 74824 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 13, 2016, the Commission extended the time period within
which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule
change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change to February 28, 2016.\6\ On February 26, 2016, the
Commission instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
\7\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule
change.\8\ Specifically, the Commission instituted proceedings to allow
for additional analysis of, and input from commenters with respect to,
the proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act.\9\ On May 26, 2016, the Commission extended the time period for
Commission action on the proceedings to determine whether to disapprove
the proposed rule change.\10\ The Commission did not receive any
comments on the proposed rule change and the Exchange did not submit a
response to the Commission's order instituting proceedings. This order
disapproves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76894, 81 FR 3213
(January 20, 2016).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77247, 81 FR 11309
(March 3, 2016) (``Order Instituting Proceedings'').
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77927, 81 FR 35411
(June 2, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange has an automated quotation adjustment functionality
that is governed by its Rule 804(g). Pursuant to these Rules, the
Exchange will automatically remove a market maker's quotations in all
series of an options class when, during a specified time period, the
market maker exceeds certain execution parameters.\11\ All market
makers are required by ISE Gemini to provide these specific parameters.
Additionally, the Exchange will automatically remove a market maker's
quotes in all classes when, during a specified time period, the total
number of quote removal events (``curtailment events'') described in
Rule 804(g)(1) exceed a specified market-wide parameter (``market-wide
speed bump'').\12\ As with the functionality to remove all option
series of an options class, all market makers are required by ISE
Gemini to specify a market-wide parameter. The market-wide speed bump
is available for quotes only on ISE Gemini or across both ISE Gemini
and ISE Gemini's affiliated exchange, International Securities
Exchange, LLC.\13\ The Exchange states that, after a market-wide speed
bump is triggered and the trading system removes all of a market
maker's quotes, the market maker may re-enter the market and resume
trading upon notification to the Exchange's Market Operations.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ISE Gemini Rule 804(g)(1) for a description of the
parameters. The time period is specified by the market maker.
    \12\ See ISE Gemini Rule 804(g)(2). The time period for a
market-wide speed bump is also specified by the market maker.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 74824.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, the Exchange seeks to amend the process by
which market makers can re-enter the market. Specifically, the proposal
requires Clearing Member approval before a market maker can resume
trading after triggering a market-wide speed bump.\15\ Following a
market-wide speed bump, the proposed rule requires: (1) A market maker
to notify its Clearing Member(s) when it is ready to resume trading;
and (2) each applicable Clearing Member to

inform the Exchange directly when its authorization has been given for
the market maker to resume trading.\16\ In order to ``facilitate a
better response time'' from Clearing Members so that a market maker can
re-enter the market, the proposal also allows the Exchange staff to
notify Clearing Member(s) when a market maker's quotes have been
removed pursuant to the market-wide speed bump.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See proposed Rule 804(g)(2).
    \16\ See id.
    \17\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Under Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act,\18\ the Commission shall
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to such organization.\19\ The Commission shall
disapprove a proposed rule change if it does not make such a
finding.\20\ Rule 700(b)(3) of the Commission's Rules of Practice
states that the ``burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is
consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations issued
thereunder . . . is on the self-regulatory organization that proposed
the rule change'' and that a ``mere assertion that the proposed rule
change is consistent with those requirements . . . is not sufficient.''
\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \19\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(i).
    \20\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(ii); see also 17 CFR
201.700(b)(3).
    \21\ See 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3). ``The description of a proposed
rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal
analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be
sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative
Commission finding. Any failure of a self-regulatory organization to
provide the information elicited by Form 19b-4 may result in the
Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an affirmative
finding that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange
Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder that are
applicable to the self-regulatory organization.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After careful consideration, the Commission does not find that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\22\ In particular, the Commission does not find
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\23\ which, among other things, requires that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In disapproving the proposed rule change, the Commission
has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has stated in the past that, because market makers
receive favorable treatment from an exchange, they must also be subject
to sufficient and commensurate affirmative obligations, including the
obligation to hold themselves out as willing to buy and sell options
for their own account on a regular or continuous basis.\24\
Accordingly, under ISE Gemini's current rules, a market maker must
enter continuous quotations for the options classes to which it is
appointed.\25\ In return, the market maker receives certain benefits,
including participation entitlements-\26\ and an exception from the
prohibition in Section 11(a) of the Act.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68341
(December 3, 2012), 77 FR 73065, 73076 (December 7, 2012) (approving
the application of Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC for
registration as a national securities exchange); Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 70050 (July 26, 2013), 78 FR 46622 (August 1, 2013)
(approving the application of Topaz Exchange, LLC for registration
as a national securities exchange); Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 76998 (January 29, 2016), 81 FR 6066 (February 4, 2016)
(approving the application of ISE Mercury, LLC for registration as a
national securities exchange).
    \25\ See ISE Gemini Rule 804(e).
    \26\ See, e.g., ISE Gemini Rule 713.
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78k(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to require Clearing Member approval before a
market maker can resume trading after triggering a market-wide speed
bump. The Exchange states in its filing that the Clearing Member should
approve a market maker's re-entry into the market after a market-wide
speed bump because the Clearing Member guarantees the market maker's
trades and bears the ultimate financial risk associated with the
transactions.\28\ The Exchange notes that, while not all market makers
are Clearing Members, all market makers require a Clearing Member's
consent to clear transactions on their behalf in order to conduct
business on the Exchange.\29\ The Exchange asserts that the proposed
rule change will permit Clearing Members to better monitor and manage
the potential risks assumed by market makers and will provide Clearing
Members with greater control and flexibility over their risk tolerance
and exposure.\30\ The Exchange further contends that, ``[w]hile in some
cases [the proposed rule change] may result in a minimal delay for a
market maker that wants to reenter the market quickly following a
market-wide speed bump, the Exchange believes that Clearing Member
approval. . .ensure[s] that the market maker does not prematurely enter
the market without adequate safeguards. . .'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 74824.
    \29\ Each market maker authorized to trade on the Exchange must
obtain from a Clearing Member a ``Letter of Guarantee'' wherein the
Clearing Member accepts financial responsibility for all Exchange
transactions made by the market maker. See ISE Gemini Rule 808.
    \30\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 74825. Under ISE Gemini's
current rules, the Exchange may share any Member-designated risk
settings in the trading system with the Clearing Member that clears
transactions on behalf of the Member. See ISE Gemini Rule 706(a).
    \31\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 74825.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, on February 26, 2016, the Commission instituted
proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \32\ to determine
whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\33\ In the
order instituting proceedings, the Commission noted that the Exchange
does not address how the proposal would impact the continuous quoting
obligations of market makers and provided no basis for its statement
that the proposed rule would result in only a ``minimal delay'' for a
market maker seeking to resume quoting following a market-wide speed
bump. Accordingly, the Commission stated that the proposed rule change
raises questions regarding the ability of market makers to meet their
quoting obligations, and whether the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. The Exchange did
not respond to the issues raised in the Commission's order instituting
proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \33\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77247, 81 FR 11309
(March 3, 2016) (``Order Instituting Proceedings'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission does not believe the Exchange has met its burden to
demonstrate that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act
and the rules and regulations issued thereunder. The Exchange proposes
to require Clearing Member approval before a market maker can resume
trading following a market-wide speed bump so that Clearing Members can
better monitor and manage their potential risks. Providing this
additional risk management tool to Clearing Members, however,
necessarily will delay the resumption of quoting by market makers and
the resulting potential market quality benefits to all users of the
Exchange. Although the Exchange states that any delay would be minimal,
it provides no evidence to support that assertion. The Exchange also
has not explained why Clearing

Member risks cannot effectively be addressed through other means, such
as bilateral, contractual arrangements between Clearing Members and
market makers that do not impede a market maker's ability to promptly
resume quoting and enhance the Exchange's market quality.
    Accordingly, the Commission does not believe that the Exchange has
met its burden to demonstrate that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder. In particular, the Commission does not find
that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires that the rules of an
exchange, among other things, be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission does not find that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange
and, in particular, with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
    IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\35\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ISE Gemini-2015-17) be,
hereby is, disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-18202 Filed 8-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36143-36146]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14542]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1415; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-145-AD;
Amendment 39-17089; AD 2012-12-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The
Boeing Company Model 717-200 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports
of cracks found on the center section ribs of the horizontal
stabilizers. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking of
the aft face of the left and right rib hinge bearing lugs of the center

section of the horizontal stabilizer; and crack measurement, repairs,
post-repair repetitive inspections, and installation of a new center
section rib if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
cracking in the left and right bearing lugs of the rib hinge spreading
at the same time, which could result in failure of both hinge bearing
lugs. Failure of the hinge bearing lugs could result in the inability
of the horizontal stabilizer to sustain flight loads and thereby reduce
the controllability of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective July 23, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of July 23,
2012.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, California 90846-
0001; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet:
https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Garrido, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-
4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2012 (77 FR
2664). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive eddy current high
frequency (ETHF) inspections for cracks on the aft face on the left and
right rib hinge bearing lugs of the center section of the horizontal
stabilizer; and crack measurement, repairs, post-repair repetitive
inspections, and installation of a new center section rib if necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(77 FR 2664, January 19, 2012), and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for NPRM (77 FR 2664, January 19, 2012)

    Boeing stated it supports the NPRM (77 FR 2664, January 19, 2012).

Request To Decrease Inspection Interval

    Kristianna Sciarraa requested we change the repetitive inspection
interval in the NPRM (77 FR 2664, January 19, 2012) from every 10,500
flight cycles to every 18 months when no cracking is found after the
initial inspection. The commenter stated that more frequent inspections
would increase early detection of fatigue cracking and would be
workable with operator schedules. The commenter also stated that the
costs associated with the decreased inspection interval are minimal
when compared to the cost to an operator if an accident occurs due to
fatigue cracking.
    We disagree with changing the repetitive inspection interval
because the repetitive inspection interval is based on damage tolerance
(crack growth) analysis of the hinge bearing lug of the horizontal
stabilizer center section. The analysis accounts for the loading and
stress in the specific location and considers worse case crack growth
from detectable to critical size and allows for multiple opportunities
to detect a crack. We have not changed the final rule in this regard.

Request To Require Reporting

    Kristianna Sciarraa requested we include mandatory reporting of
inspection results in the NPRM (77 FR 2664, January 19, 2012). The
commenter stated that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0011, dated
May 17, 2011, specifies reporting and that providing the manufacturer
with such information would foster an important exchange of information
with an end goal of creating safe and reliable aircraft to ensure
passenger and operator protection.
    We disagree with requiring mandatory reporting of inspection
results. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0011, dated May 17, 2011,
already specifies submitting information to the manufacturer. This
final rule does not include that requirement because we understand the
unsafe condition, and we do not want to add an additional burden on the
operators. We require reporting of inspection reports if the unsafe
condition is a result of quality control issues or if we are trying to
understand the scope of the unsafe condition. We have not changed the
final rule in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 129 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                    Labor cost         Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETHF Inspection.................  6 work-hours x $85               $0   $510 per inspection  $65,790 per
                                   per hour = $510                       cycle.               inspection cycle.
                                   per inspection
                                   cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     We have received no definitive data that would enable us to
provide cost estimates for the on-condition labor costs specified in
this AD. The estimated parts cost for a replacement rib is $16,387.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2012-12-09 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17089; Docket No. FAA-
2011-1415; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-145-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 23, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 717-200
airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 5510, Horizontal Stabilizer Structure.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks found on the center
section ribs of the horizontal stabilizers. We are issuing this AD
to detect and correct cracking in the left and right bearing lugs of
the rib hinge spreading at the same time, which could result in
failure of both hinge bearing lugs. Failure of the hinge bearing
lugs could result in the inability of the horizontal stabilizer to
sustain flight loads and thereby reduce the controllability of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Eddy Current High Frequency (ETHF) Inspections

    Before the accumulation of 35,000 total flight cycles, or within
8,275 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later: Do an ETHF inspection for cracks of the aft face on
the left and right rib hinge bearing lugs of the center section of
the horizontal stabilizer, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0011, dated May
17, 2011. If no crack is found, repeat the inspection thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 10,500 flight cycles.

(h) Crack Measurement

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, measure the length
of the crack, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0011, dated May 17, 2011.

(i) Blend Out Repair, ETHF Inspections, and Corrective Action for
Certain Crack Lengths

    For any crack that meets ``Condition 2A'' of Table 1 of 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0011, dated
May 17, 2011: Do the actions in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this
AD.
    (1) Before further flight, do a blend out repair, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 717-55A0011, dated May 17, 2011.
    (2) Within 14,200 flight cycles after accomplishing the blend
out repair required by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD: Do an ETHF
inspection of the blend out repair area for cracking, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 717-55A0011, dated May 17, 2011. If no cracking is found,
repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,400
flight cycles.
    (i) If any crack is found during the ETHF inspection required by
paragraph (i)(2) of this AD: Before further flight, remove the
cracked center section rib of the horizontal stabilizer and install
a new center section rib, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0011, dated May
17, 2011.
    (ii) Within 35,000 flight cycles after the installation of the
new center section rib, do the actions in paragraph (g) of this AD.

(j) Corrective Action for Certain Crack Lengths

    For any crack that meets ``Condition 2D'' of Table 1 of 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0011, dated
May 17, 2011: Before further flight, remove the cracked center
section rib of the horizontal stabilizer and install a new center
section rib, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0011, dated May 17, 2011.
Within 35,000 flight cycles after the installation of the new rib,
do the actions in paragraph (g) of this AD.

(k) No Reporting Requirement

    Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0011, dated May
17, 2011, specifies to submit certain information to the
manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

 (l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to
make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair
must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval
must specifically refer to this AD.

 (m) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact George Garrido,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Lakewood,

California 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
 (n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1)You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference (IBR) of the following service information under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0011, dated May 17,
2011.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, California 90846-
0001; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet:
https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 7, 2012.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-14542 Filed 6-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P