[Federal Register: June 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 106)]
[Notices]
[Page 31526-31528]
[DOCID:fr02jn08-117]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57870; File No. SR-NYSE-2008-37]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Amend NYSE Rule 13 To Extend the Definition of Routing Broker and
Effect Conforming Changes to NYSE Rule 17

May 27, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''), \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 9, 2008, the New York Stock Exchange, LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange.
The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as a ``non-
controversial'' rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule
change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 13 to include in the
definition of ``Routing Broker'' any non-affiliate third-party broker-
dealer that may act as a Routing Broker for the Exchange. The Exchange
further proposes a conforming amendment to Exchange Rule 17 to allow
for the operation of such a non-affiliate third-party broker-dealer.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at NYSE, the
Commission's Public Reference Room, and www.nyse.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Through this filing, the Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule
13 to expand the definition of ``Routing Broker'' to include any non-
affiliate third-party broker-dealer that may act as a Routing Broker
for the Exchange. The Exchange further proposes to make conforming
amendments to Exchange Rule 17 to allow for the operation of

such a non-affiliate third-party broker-dealer.

Current Exchange Rules 13 and 17

    Exchange Rule 13 currently defines a Routing Broker as the broker-
dealer affiliate of the Exchange that acts as agent for routing orders
entered into Exchange systems to other market centers for execution
whenever such routing is required by Exchange Rules and federal
securities laws.\5\ Rule 13 further provides that the Routing Broker
shall operate as prescribed in Exchange Rule 17. Archipelago
Securities, LLC (``Arca Sec''), a broker-dealer affiliate of the
Exchange, currently functions as the sole Routing Broker for the
Exchange.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ On April 5, 2007, the Commission noticed amendments to
Exchange Rules 13 and 17 to establish a mechanism to route orders to
away market centers for execution in compliance with Exchange Rules
and Regulation NMS, and to facilitate the acceptance of odd-lot and
sub-penny executions. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55590
(April 5, 2007), 72 FR 18707 (April 13, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-29)
(``Routing Broker Release'').
    \6\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange Rule 17 provides that the Routing Broker will receive
routing instructions from the Exchange to route orders to other market
centers and report such executions back to the Exchange.\7\ The Routing
Broker has no discretion and cannot change the terms of an order or the
routing instructions.\8\ Although the use of the Routing Broker to
route orders to another market center is optional, all trades entered
on the Exchange that are routed to other market centers via the Routing
Broker and are executed are binding.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Exchange Rule 17(b)(1).
    \8\ See id.
    \9\ See Exchange Rule 17(b)(3) and (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By serving as a ``system of communication to or from'' the
Exchange, the Routing Broker operates as a facility of the Exchange in
accordance with Section 3(a)(2) of the Act.\10\ The Exchange is
responsible for filing with the Commission any rule changes and fees
relating to the functions performed by the Routing Broker on NYSE.\11\
The books, records, premises, officers, agents, directors and employees
of the Routing Broker, as a facility of the Exchange, shall be deemed
to be those of the Exchange (and subject to its oversight) for the
purposes of the Act.\12\ The books and records of the Routing Broker as
a facility of the Exchange are subject at all times to inspection and
copying by the Exchange and the Commission.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(2). See also Exchange Rule 17(b)(5) and
(6).
    \11\ See Exchange Rule 17(b)(5).
    \12\ See Exchange Rule 17(b)(6).
    \13\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendments to Exchange Rules 13 and 17

    The Exchange believes it is prudent to have a secondary Routing
Broker (or Brokers, as may be needed) as a risk management tool in the
event of a system malfunction or failure. The Exchange thus proposes to
amend Rules 13 and 17 to allow any non-affiliate third-party broker-
dealer to operate as a Routing Broker for NYSE.
    Under this proposal, Arca Sec would continue to operate as an
Exchange Routing Broker in conjunction with a non-affiliate third-party
broker-dealer(s) that will operate simultaneously as a Routing Broker
for the Exchange. By relying on parallel Routing Brokers, the Exchange
will have the ability to divert order flow from one Routing Broker to
another in the event of a system malfunction or failure.
    A non-affiliate third-party broker-dealer will operate as
prescribed by Exchange Rule 17, subject to an amendment to subparagraph
(b)(2). Currently, Exchange Rule 17(b)(2) provides that the Routing
Broker will not engage in any business other than (a) its outbound
router function and (b) any other activities it may engage in as
approved by the Commission.\14\ In view of the addition of a non-
affiliate third-party broker-dealer to Rules 13 and 17, the Exchange
proposes to limit the proscription on business conduct contained in
Rule 17(b)(2) to its broker-dealer affiliate (i.e. Arca Sec).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This provision relates specifically to Arca Sec in its
capacity as the Exchange's sole Routing Broker and affiliate. See
Routing Broker Release, supra note 5. In March 2007, the Commission
authorized Arca Sec to act as a marketing agent on behalf of NYSE
Arca Tech 100 Index and NYSE Arca Tech 100 ETF. These business
functions have no connection to Arca Sec's function as Routing
Broker and facility for the Exchange. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 55442 (March 12, 2007), 72 FR 12654 (March 16, 2007)
(SR-NYSEArca-2007-09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any non-affiliate third-party broker-dealer that serves as a
Routing Broker to the Exchange will be subject to the regulatory
oversight and enforcement responsibilities of a self-regulatory
organization unaffiliated with the Exchange or any of its other
affiliates.\15\ Furthermore, the Exchange shall establish and maintain
procedures and internal controls reasonably designed to adequately
restrict the flow of confidential and proprietary information between
the Exchange and its facilities (including the non-affiliate third-
party broker-dealer acting as a facility of the Exchange (``third-party
Routing Facility''), and any other entity, including any affiliate of
the third-party Routing Facility, and, if the third-party Routing
Facility or any of its affiliates engage in any other business
activities other than providing routing services to the Exchange,
between the segment of the third-party Routing Facility or affiliate
that provides the other business activities and the routing
services.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Currently, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') is the examining authority for the Routing Broker
designated by the Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-1 of the Act. As
such, FINRA is responsible for the oversight and enforcement of the
Routing Broker for compliance with the applicable financial
responsibility rules.
    \16\ See proposed Exchange Rule 17(b)(8). Telephone conversation
between Deanna Logan, Associate General Counsel, Office of General
Counsel, NYSE, and Theodore S. Venuti, Special Counsel, Division of
Trading and Markets, Commission, on May 27, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for the proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(5),\17\ which requires that an exchange
have rules that are designed to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, 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. The Exchange believes that
having a secondary Routing Broker as a risk management tool in the
event of a system malfunction or failure fulfills these requirements.
The Exchange thus proposes to amend Rules 13 and 17 to allow any non-
affiliate third-party broker-dealer to operate as a Routing Broker for
NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also supports the principles of Section
11A(a)(1)(C) of the Act \18\ in that it seeks to ensure economically
efficient execution of securities transactions and to make it
practicable for brokers to execute investors' orders in the best
market. The proposed rule change also contributes to the linking of all
markets for qualified securities through communication and data
processing facilities pursuant to Section 11A(a)(1)(D) of the Act,\19\
by fostering efficiency, enhancing competition, increasing information
availability, facilitating the offsetting of investors' orders, and
contributing to the best execution of such orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not

necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30
days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \20\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\22\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \23\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
will immediately provide a mechanism for the Exchange to divert order
flow from one Routing Broker to another in the event of a system
malfunction or failure. In addition, the Commission notes that the
proposed Exchange rules applicable to a non-affiliated Routing Broker
are substantially similar to the rules of other national securities
exchanges applicable to non-affiliated outbound routing brokers.\24\
For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposed rule change
to be operative upon filing with the Commission.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to
the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing
of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by
the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this notice requirement.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ See, e.g., the National Stock Exchange, Inc. Rule 2.12, the
Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. Rule 185(g), and the International
Securities Exchange, LLC Rule 2108.
    \25\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change 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 SR-NYSE-2008-37 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 SR-NYSE-2008-37. 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 inspection and
copying 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
the Exchange. 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 SR-
NYSE-2008-37 and should be submitted on or before June 23, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-12205 Filed 5-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 24, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24094-24100]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09701]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0282; FRL-9384-2]

Azoxystrobin; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
azoxystrobin in or on multiple commodities discussed later in this
document. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC requested these tolerances
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective April 24, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 24, 2013, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for these actions, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0282, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Malone, 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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's eCFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0282 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 24, 2013. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0282, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of April 4, 2012 (77 FR 20336) (FRL-9340-
4), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
1E7945) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro,
NC 27419-8300. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.507 be amended by
establishing an import tolerance for residues of the fungicide
azoxystrobin, [methyl(E)-2-(2-(6-(2-cyanophenoxy) pyrimidin-4-
yloxy)phenyl)-3-methoxyacrylate], and the Z-isomer of azoxystrobin,
[methyl(Z)-2-(2-(6-(2-

cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-yloxy)phenyl)-3-methoxyacrylate] in or on
ginseng extract (red ginseng extract and ginseng extract) at 0.5 parts
per million (ppm). That document referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, the registrant, which is
available in the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0041, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
    Additionally, in the Federal Register of May 23, 2012 (77 FR 30484)
(FRL-9347-8), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section
408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of pesticide
petitions (PP 2F7976 and PP 2F7984) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC,
P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. The petitions requested that
40 CFR 180.507 be amended by:
     Establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide
azoxystrobin, [methyl(E)-2-(2-(6-(2-cyanophenoxy) pyrimidin-4-
yloxy)phenyl)-3-methoxyacrylate] and the Z-isomer of azoxystrobin,
[methyl(Z)-2-(2-(6-(2-cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-yloxy)phenyl)-3-
methoxyacrylate], in or on oats, forage at 4 parts per million (ppm);
oats, hay at 7 ppm; oats, straw at 3 ppm; oats, grain at 1 ppm; rye,
forage at 4 ppm; rye, straw at 0.8 ppm; rye, grain at 0.07 ppm;
poultry, meat at 0.01 ppm; poultry, liver at 0.2 ppm; poultry, fat at
0.01 ppm; egg at 0.1 ppm; cattle, liver at 0.5 ppm; cattle, kidney at
0.1 ppm; hog, liver at 0.2 ppm; hog, kidney at 0.03 ppm (PP 2F7976);
     Amending established tolerances for barley, hay from 15
ppm to 7 ppm; barley, straw from 7 ppm to 8 ppm; barley, grain from 3
ppm to 2 ppm; wheat, forage from 25 ppm to 10 ppm; wheat, straw from 4
ppm to 6 ppm; wheat, hay from 15 ppm to 20 ppm; grain aspirated
fractions from 420 ppm to 460 ppm; cattle, fat from 0.03 ppm to 0.3
ppm; hog, fat from 0.01 ppm to 0.1 ppm; hog, meat from 0.01 ppm to 0.02
ppm; (PP 2F7984).
    The notices referenced summaries of the petitions prepared by
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, the registrant, which is available in
the dockets EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0282 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0283, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is
establishing tolerances that vary from what the petitioner requested.
The reason for these changes is 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 FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for azoxystrobin including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with azoxystrobin follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    The toxicological profile for azoxystrobin has not changed since
the final rule published in the Federal Register of July 13, 2012 (77
FR 41285) (FRL-9352-2). See that rule for a summary of the
toxicological profile and references to supporting Agency documents
that discuss specific information on the toxicity studies received and
the nature of the adverse effects caused by azoxystrobin as well as the
no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-
adverse-effect-level (LOAEL).

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 azoxystrobin used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of July 13, 2012 (77 FR 41286) (FRL-
9352-2).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to azoxystrobin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing azoxystrobin tolerances in 40
CFR 180.507. EPA assessed dietary exposures from azoxystrobin 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.
    Such effects were identified for azoxystrobin. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United
States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in

America (NHANES/WWEIA) conducted from 2003 to 2008. As to residue
levels in food, the acute dietary exposure assessment of azoxystrobin
is partially refined by using highest residue values for citrus fruits
and assuming tolerance-level residues for all other existing and
proposed commodities. One hundred percent of the crops were assumed
treated with azoxystrobin and DEEM (Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model)
version 7.81 default processing factors were used except where
tolerances were established for processed commodities.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's (NHANES/
WWEIA) conducted from 2003 to 2008, as well. As to residue levels in
food, a slightly refined chronic dietary analysis for azoxystrobin was
conducted using tolerance-level residues and average percent crop
treated estimates when available. DEEM version 7.81 default processing
factors were assumed except for where tolerances were established for
processed commodities or when processing studies show no concentration.
An updated screening level usage analysis (SLUA) of azoxystrobin from
2011 was used for percent crop treated.
    iii. Cancer. The rat and the mouse carcinogenicity studies on
azoxystrobin do not show an increase in tumor incidence. Azoxystrobin
is classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.''
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated or actual residues and percent crop treated (PCT)
information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use
available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of
pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues
that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA
must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided
5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in
effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such Data Call-Ins
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The Agency estimated the PCT for existing uses as follows: Almonds,
25%; apricots, 10%; artichokes, 25%; asparagus, 2.5%; green beans, 10%;
blackberries, 5%; blueberries, 10%; broccoli, 5%; cabbage, 10%;
cantaloupes, 10%; carrots, 10%; cauliflower, 2.5%; celery, 10%;
cherries, 5%; corn, 2.5%; cotton, 5%; cucumbers, 20%; dry beans/peas,
1%; garlic, 60%; grapefruit, 20%; grapes, 5%; hazelnuts (filberts), 5%;
lettuce, 2.5%; onions, 10%; oranges, 5%; peaches, 5%; peanuts, 15%;
green peas, 2.5%; pecans, 2.5%; peppers, 15%; pistachios, 15%;
potatoes, 35%; prunes, 2.5%; pumpkins, 20%; raspberries, 5%; rice, 35%;
soybeans, 2.5%; spinach, 10%; squash, 15%; strawberries, 30%; sugar
beets, 5%; sweet corn, 10%; tangerines, 15%; tomatoes, 15%; walnuts,
1%; watermelon, 20%; and wheat, 2.5%.
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use
Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7
years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The
average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining
available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging
across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for
those situations in which the average PCT is less than 1%. In those
cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum
PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The
maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported
within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey
data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of
food to which azoxystrobin may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for azoxystrobin in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of azoxystrobin. 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 First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST), the
highest estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of azoxystrobin
for acute exposures are estimated to be 173 parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water and 33 ppb for chronic exposures for non-cancer
assessments. Based on the Screening Concentration in Groundwater,
version 2.3, August 8, 2003 (SCI-GROW), the EDWC for ground water is
3.1 ppb for all exposures.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 173 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 33 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). Azoxystrobin is currently
registered for the following uses that could result in residential
exposures: Outdoor residential (lawns, ornamentals, flower gardens,
vegetables, fruit and nut trees, berries and vines) and recreational
(golf courses, parks and athletic fields) sites. Additionally,
azoxystrobin is registered for uses on indoor carpets/other surfaces,
and in treated paints (preservative incorporation). EPA assessed
residential exposure using the following assumptions:
     Residential uses will result in short-term (1 to 30 days)
handler exposure; residential handlers are assumed to be wearing short-
sleeved shirts, short pants, shoes, and socks during the application;
and because there was no dermal endpoint chosen for azoxystrobin,
residential handler risk from exposure was assessed for the inhalation
route only.
     The Agency assumed that post-application exposure in
residential settings is expected to be short-term in duration only.
Residential post-application inhalation exposure in outdoor settings is
considered negligible; however, residential post-application inhalation
exposure in indoor settings has been assessed for adults and children.
    Further information regarding EPA's standard assumptions and
generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
    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 azoxystrobin to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and azoxystrobin does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
azoxystrobin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA 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 prenatal and postnatal
toxicity database for azoxystrobin is complete and includes prenatal
developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and a 2-generation
study in rats. In these studies, offspring toxicity was observed at
equivalent or higher doses than those resulting in parental toxicity;
thus, there is no evidence of increased susceptibility and there are no
residual uncertainties with regards to prenatal and/or postnatal
toxicity.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has retained the FQPA SF, reduced to 3X, in
assessing acute dietary risk. An additional safety factor is needed for
acute risk assessment to account for the use of a LOAEL from the acute
neurotoxicity study in rats in deriving the acute reference dose used
for assessing acute dietary exposure for all populations including
infants and children. To account for the use of a LOAEL from the acute
neurotoxicity study in rats, the Agency believes that a 3X FQPA SF (as
opposed to a 10X) will be adequate to extrapolate a NOAEL in assessing
acute risk based on the following considerations:
     The effect seen (transient diarrhea seen in the rat) is of
a nature that is relatively insignificant;
     The diarrhea was only seen in studies involving gavage
dosing in the rat but not in repeat dosing through dietary
administration in rats and mice, and not through gavage dosing in
rabbits; and
     The very high dose level needed to reach the acute oral
lethal dose (LD)50 (>5,000 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg)), and
the overall low toxicity of azoxystrobin.
    However, EPA has determined that reliable data show that it would
be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor to 1X
for short-term, intermediate-term, and chronic risk assessment. This
determination is based on the following considerations.
    i. The toxicity database for azoxystrobin is complete except for
immunotoxicity. Changes to 40 CFR part 158 make immunotoxicity testing
(OPPTS Guideline 870.7800) required for pesticide registration;
however, the existing data are sufficient for endpoint selection for
exposure/risk assessment scenarios, and for evaluation of the
requirements under the FQPA. There are no indications in the available
studies that organs associated with immune function, such as the thymus
and spleen, are affected by azoxystrobin and azoxystrobin does not
belong to a class of chemicals that would be expected to be
immunotoxic. Based on the above considerations, EPA does not believe
that conducting the immunotoxicity study will result in a dose less
than the point of departure already used in this risk assessment and an
additional database uncertainty factor for potential immunotoxicity
does not need to be applied.
    ii. Clinical signs, including transient diarrhea and decreased body
weight, body weight gain, and food utilization, were noted in the acute
and subchronic neurotoxicity studies, but were not considered
indicative of neurotoxicity. There is no need for a developmental
neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that azoxystrobin results in increased
susceptibility to in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties in the azoxystrobin
exposure database. While some refinements were incorporated into the
dietary exposure calculations, EPA is confident that the aggregate risk
from exposure to azoxystrobin in food, drinking water, and residential
pathways will not be underestimated. The acute dietary (food) exposure
assessment utilized conservative upper-bound inputs including 100% of
the proposed and registered crops treated, and tolerance-level residues
for all existing and proposed commodities, except citrus fruits where
the highest field trial residue was used as a refinement. The chronic
dietary exposure assessment was partially refined, and used tolerance-
level residues for all commodities and PCT estimates when available
(SLUA, 07/13/11). Although the acute and chronic assessments included
minor refinements, the use of

field trial and PCT estimates ensures that actual exposures/risks from
residues in food will not be underestimated. The drinking water
assessment utilized water concentration values generated by models and
associated modeling parameters which are designed to produce
conservative, health protective, high-end estimates of water
concentrations which are not likely to be exceeded. The dietary (food
and drinking water) exposure assessment does not underestimate the
potential exposure for infants, children, or women of child-bearing
age.
    In addition, the residential exposure assessment is based on the
updated 2012 Residential SOPs employing surrogate study data, including
conservative exposure assumptions based on Day 0 dermal/oral contact to
turf and surfaces treated at the maximum application rate. These data
are reliable and are not expected to underestimate risks to adults or
children. The Residential SOPs are based upon reasonable ``worst-case''
assumptions and are not expected to underestimate risk.

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. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute aggregate risk would be equivalent
to the acute dietary exposure from food and water to azoxystrobin will
occupy 41% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group
receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3.,
regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to
residues of azoxystrobin is not expected. Therefore, the chronic
aggregate risk would be equivalent to the chronic dietary exposure
estimate and was 17% of the cPAD for the most highly exposed subgroup,
children 1-2 years old.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Azoxystrobin
is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to azoxystrobin.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 920 for general
U.S. population and 190 for children 1 to 2 years old. Because EPA's
level of concern for azoxystrobin is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs
are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Azoxystrobin is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Therefore, EPA relies
on chronic dietary exposure to evaluate intermediate-term aggregate
risk.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, azoxystrobin is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to azoxystrobin residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodologies are available to enforce the
tolerance expression and have been submitted to FDA for inclusion in
the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Volume II: A gas chromatography
method with nitrogen-phosphorus detection (GC/NPD), RAM 243/04, for the
enforcement of tolerances for residues of azoxystrobin and its Z-isomer
in crop commodities; and a GC/NPD method, RAM 255/01, for the
enforcement of tolerances of azoxystrobin in livestock commodities.
    The methods may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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 United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established MRLs for azoxystrobin on oat, forage;
oat, hay; rye, forage; barley, hay; wheat, forage; wheat, hay; and
grain aspirated fractions.
    The Codex has established MRLs for azoxystrobin in or on ginseng,
dried including red ginseng at 0.5 ppm; rye, grain at 0.2 ppm and
wheat, grain at 0.2 ppm. These MRLs are the same as the tolerances
established for azoxystrobin in the United States.
    The Codex has established MRLs for azoxystrobin in or on oats,
grain at 0.5 ppm and barley, grain at 0.5 ppm. These MRLs are different
than the tolerances established for azoxystrobin in the United States.
The U.S. tolerance on oat grain (1.5 ppm) and barley grain (3 ppm)
could not be harmonized since the Codex MRLs are lower. Setting the
U.S. tolerance to be consistent with the Codex MRLs might lead to
residues in excess of the tolerance, despite legal use of the pesticide
in accordance with the registered label.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The tolerance levels requested by the petitioners are based on
residue data submitted using lower application rates than are found on
the registered label; therefore, EPA used the proportionality principle
(JMPR Report 2011) to estimate residue values that reflect the higher
application rates on the registered label. In doing this exercise, EPA
determined that an adjustment to the wheat, grain tolerance was
required to reflect the application rates for the pesticide.
    The proposed tolerance on ginseng extract (red ginseng extract and
ginseng

extract) is not needed because the tolerance on ginseng will cover the
expected residues in these processed commodities.
    The proposed amended tolerance for grain aspirated fractions is not
needed due to the current tolerance being sufficient. EPA is not
establishing the tolerances as proposed for livestock commodities as
there was no increased dietary burden on livestock with the new uses,
the existing tolerances were sufficient.
    The tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.507(a)(2) is incorrect and
was revised.

 V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of azoxystrobin,
[methyl(E)-2-(2-(6-(2-cyanophenoxy) pyrimidin-4-yloxy)phenyl)-3-
methoxyacrylate and the Z-isomer of azoxystrobin, [methyl(Z)-2-(2-(6-
(2-cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-yloxy)phenyl)-3-methoxyacrylate], in or on
oat, forage at 5.0 ppm; oat, hay at 10.0 ppm; oat, straw at 3.0 ppm;
oat, grain at 1.5 ppm; rye, forage at 7.0 ppm; rye, straw at 1.5 ppm;
rye, grain at 0.2 ppm; barley, hay at 10.0 ppm; barley, straw 15.0 ppm;
wheat, forage from at 15.0 ppm; wheat, straw at 10.0 ppm; wheat, hay at
30.0 ppm; and wheat, grain at 0.2 ppm. In conjunction with
establishment of the wheat grain tolerance at 0.2 ppm, the existing
tolerance on wheat bran needs to be deleted from 40 CFR 180.507(a)(1).
    Also, EPA is establishing a tolerance for residues of azoxystrobin
[methyl(E)-2-(2-(6-(2-cyanophenoxy) pyrimidin-4-yloxy)phenyl)-3-
methoxyacrylate] and the Z-isomer of azoxystrobin, [methyl(Z)-2-(2-(6-
(2-cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-yloxy)phenyl)-3-methoxyacrylate], in or on
ginseng at 0.5 ppm. Although, as of the date of publication of this
rule, there are no U.S. registrations for use of azoxystrobin on
ginseng, this tolerance will allow for imports of treated ginseng
meeting this tolerance level.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: April 12, 2013.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.507:
0
a. Revise the entries for ``Barley, hay'', ``Barley, straw'', ``Wheat,
grain'', ``Wheat, hay'', ands ``Wheat, straw'' in the table in
paragraph (a)(1);
0
b. Add alphabetically the entries for ``Ginseng'', ``Oats, forage'',
``Oats, grain'', ``Oats, hay'', ``Oats, straw'', ``Rye, forage'',
``Rye, grain'', ``Rye, straw'' to the table in paragraph (a)(1);
0
c. Remove the entry in the table in paragraph (a)(1) for ``Wheat,
bran'';
0
d. Add footnote 1 to the table in paragraph (a)(1); and
0
e. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (a)(2)
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  180.507  Azoxystrobin; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Barley, hay................................................         10.0
Barley, straw..............................................         15.0

                                * * * * *
Ginseng \1\................................................          0.5

                                * * * * *
Oats, forage...............................................          5.0
Oats, grain................................................          1.5
Oats, hay..................................................         10.0
Oats, straw................................................          3.0

                                * * * * *
Rye, forage................................................          7.0
Rye, grain.................................................          0.2
Rye, straw.................................................          1.5

                                * * * * *
Wheat, grain...............................................          0.2
Wheat, hay.................................................         30.0
Wheat, straw...............................................         10.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no United States registrations for use of azoxystrobin on
  ginseng.

    (2) Tolerances are established for residues of the fungicide,
azoxystrobin, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified in the table is to be determined by measuring only
azoxystrobin, [methyl(E)-2-(2-(6-(2-cyanophenoxy) pyrimidin-4-
yloxy)phenyl)-3-methoxyacrylate] in or on the commodity.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-09701 Filed 4-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 78 (Monday, April 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24850-24851]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08519]

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

UNIFIED CARRIER REGISTRATION PLAN

Board of Directors; Request for Nominations

AGENCY: Unified Carrier Registration Plan.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Unified Carrier Registration (UCR) Plan Board of Directors
is requesting nominations of qualified individuals in all four service
areas of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) (as
those areas were defined by FMCSA on January 1, 2005) for appointment
by the FMCSA to the UCR Plan Board of Directors to fill four vacancies
for terms which expire on May 31, 2026. The nominees must be from among
the Chief Administrative Officers of State Agencies responsible for
overseeing the administration of the UCR Agreement.

DATES: Nominations of or expressions of interest by qualified
individuals to be considered by the FMCSA for appointment to fill these
four vacancies in the Board of Directors of the Unified Carrier
Registration Plan, along with accompanying resumes, must be received on
or before May 10, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Nominations of or expressions of interest by qualified
individuals to be considered by the FMCSA for appointment to the Board
of the UCR Plan may be received by any of the following methods--
internet, regular mail, courier, or hand-delivery.
    Mail, Courier, or Hand-Delivery: Unified Carrier Registration Plan,
Attention: Matt Mantione, 3200 Windy Hill Rd., Suite 600W, Atlanta, GA
30339, internet: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Leaman, Chair, Unified
Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: Section 4305(b) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
[Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, August 10, 2005] enacted 49 U.S.C.
14504a, entitled ``Unified carrier registration system plan and
agreement.'' Under the UCR Agreement, motor carriers, motor private
carriers, brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing companies that are
involved in interstate transportation register and pay certain fees.
The UCR Plan's Board of Directors must issue rules and regulations to
govern the UCR Agreement. Section 14504a(a)(9) defines the Unified
Carrier Registration Plan as the organization of State, Federal, and
industry representatives responsible for developing, implementing, and
administering the UCRA. Section 14504a(d)(1)(B) directed the Secretary
of Transportation to establish a Unified Carrier Registration Plan
Board of Directors made up of 15 members from FMCSA, State Governments,
and the motor carrier industry.
    The Board also must recommend to the Secretary of Transportation
annual fees to be assessed against carriers, leasing companies,
brokers, and freight forwarders under the UCRA. Section 14504a(d)(1)(B)
provides that the UCR Plan's Board of Directors must consist of
directors from the following groups:
    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: One director must be
selected from each of the FMCSA service areas (as defined by FMCSA on
January 1, 2005) from among the chief administrative officers of the
State agencies responsible for administering the UCRA.
    State Agencies: The five directors selected to represent State
agencies must be from among the professional staffs of State agencies
responsible for overseeing the administration of the UCR Agreement.
    Motor Carrier Industry: Five directors must be from the motor
carrier industry.
    At least one of the five motor carrier industry directors must be
from ``a national trade association representing the general motor
carrier of property industry'' and one of them must be from ``a motor
carrier that falls within the smallest fleet fee bracket.''
    U.S. Department of Transportation (the Department): One individual,
either the FMCSA Deputy Administrator or such other Presidential
appointee from the Department appointed by the Secretary, represents
the Department.
    The establishment of the Board was announced in the Federal
Register on May 12, 2006 (71 FR 27777). This document serves as a
notice from the UCR Plan Board of Directors soliciting nominations of
and expressions of interest by qualified individuals who are interested
in being considered by the FMCSA for appointment to the Board as a
representative of a State agency responsible for overseeing the Unified
Carrier Registration Agreement (UCR Agreement) from a State in each of
the FMCSA's four service areas (again, as those service areas were
defined on January 1, 2005). For purposes of Board appointments, on
January 1, 2005, the Eastern service area included the UCR
participating states of Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maine,
New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, and West
Virginia. The Midwestern service area included the UCR participating
states of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The Southern service area
included the UCR participating states of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. The Western service area included the
UCR participating states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Washington.
The term of this appointment expires on May 31, 2026.
    All nominations of or expressions of interest by qualified
individuals received for the four soon to be vacant positions described
above and submitted on or before May 10, 2023, will be forwarded to
FMCSA. The authority to appoint an individual to fill each of the four
vacant positions lies with Secretary of Transportation, which has been
delegated to FMCSA.
    Nominations and expressions of interest should indicate that the
individual nominated or interested meets the statutory requirements
specified in 49 U.S.C. 14504a(d)(1)(B). All applications must include a
current resume.

    The UCR Plan Board may, but is not required to, recommend to FMCSA
the appointment of individuals from among the nominations and
expressions of interest received. If the Board does make such
recommendation(s), it will do so after consideration during an open
meeting in compliance with the Government in the Sunshine Act that
includes such recommendation(s) as part of the subject matter of the
open meeting.

Alex B. Leath,
Chief Legal Officer, Unified Carrier Registration Plan.
[FR Doc. 2023-08519 Filed 4-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67541-67543]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24370]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2022 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1070; Project Identifier 2020-CE-004-AD; Amendment
39-22214; AD 2022-21-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH (DAI) Model DA 42, DA 42 NG,
and DA 42 M-NG airplanes. This AD is prompted by mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a loose
rudder T-yoke axle nut. This AD requires replacing the rudder T-yoke
axle with an improved rudder T-yoke axle. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 14, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 14,
2022.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2021-1070; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the MCAI, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Stra[szlig]e 5, A-
2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria; phone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622
26780; email: [email protected]; website: diamondaircraft.com.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2021-1070.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Penelope Trease, Aviation Safety
Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 26805 E 68th Avenue, Denver, CO 80249; phone:
(303) 342-1094; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain serial-numbered
DAI Model DA 42, DA 42 NG, and DA 42 M-NG airplanes. The NPRM published
in the Federal Register on December 14, 2021 (86 FR 70987). The NPRM
was prompted by MCAI originated by the European Union Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of
the European Union. EASA issued EASA AD 2019-0302, dated December 13,
2019 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to address the unsafe
condition on DAI Model DA 42, DA 42 M, DA 42 NG, and DA 42 M-NG
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Occurrences were reported of finding a loose rudder T-yoke axle
nut on DA 42 aeroplanes.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
vertical movement of the axle, possibly resulting in reduced rudder
control of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, DAI issued the
applicable MSB [Mandatory Service Bulletin], providing instructions
to inspect for correct installation of the self-locking nut to the
affected part.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires
repetitive inspections for correct installation of the self-locking
nut to the affected part and, depending on findings, accomplishment
of applicable corrective action(s) and replacement of the self-
locking nut. This [EASA] AD also provides an optional terminating
action for the repetitive inspections.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1070.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing the rudder T-
yoke axle with an improved rudder T-yoke axle. The FAA is issuing this
AD to prevent movement of the T-yoke axle. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could result in reduced control of the airplane.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received one comment from DAI. The following presents the
comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to the comment.

Request To Include New Mandatory Service Bulletin Published by DAI in
the NPRM

    DAI requested that the FAA revise the NPRM to include recently
published Diamond Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin DAI MSB 42-143
and MSB 42NG-086, dated December 23, 2021 (issued as one document), and
explained this service bulletin further rectifies the unsafe condition
of the movement of the T-yoke axle by specifying instructions to apply
torque seal marks to the head of the T-yoke axle and to the self-
locking nut. DAI further explained that the temporary revision of the
aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) specifies visual inspection of these
torque seal marks during every annual inspection. According to DAI, the
additional visual inspection of the torque seal marks incorporated in
Diamond Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin DAI MSB 42-143 and MSB
42NG-086, dated December 23, 2021, replaces the ``Inspection of Rudder
T-yoke axle Nut for Looseness'' section of Diamond Aircraft Mandatory
Service Bulletin DAI MSB 42-137/1 and MSB 42NG-079/1, dated December
11, 2021 (issued as one document), that was previously mandated by EASA
AD 2019-0302.
    The FAA disagrees. In the NPRM, the FAA did not propose to require
the

repetitive inspection of the T-yoke axle nut, as specified in Diamond
Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin DAI MSB 42-137/1 and MSB 42NG-079/
1, dated December 11, 2021, to correct the unsafe condition, but
instead proposed to require replacement of the rudder T-yoke axle with
an improved rudder T-yoke axle. Therefore, Diamond Aircraft Mandatory
Service Bulletin DAI MSB 42-143 and MSB 42NG-086, dated December 23,
2021, is not required by the FAA to correct the unsafe condition. If
EASA issues an AD to mandate additional actions specified in DAI
service information, the FAA will evaluate the requirements in the EASA
AD and consider additional rulemaking.

Conclusion

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA reviewed the
relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air
safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. This
AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Diamond Aircraft Recommended Service Bulletin DAI
RSB 42-139 and DAI RSB 42NG-081, dated October 21, 2019 (issued as one
document), published with DAI Work Instruction WI-RSB 42-139 and WI-RSB
42NG-081, Revision 1, dated October 24, 2019 (issued as one document)
attached. The service bulletin specifies complying with the work
instruction, which contains procedures for replacing the rudder T-yoke
axle with an improved (additional retaining pin) rudder T-yoke axle.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI

    The MCAI applies to the Model DA 42 M airplane, and this AD does
not because it does not have an FAA type certificate.
    The MCAI requires repetitively inspecting the self-locking nut
until the rudder T-yoke axle is replaced with improved part number (P/
N) D60-5320-00-32. This AD requires installing rudder T-yoke axle P/N
D60-5320-00-32 and does not have an inspection requirement.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 193 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates that it would take about 6 work-hours to
replace the rudder T-yoke axle and require parts costing $166. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the
FAA estimates the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $130,468 or
$676 per airplane.

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.
    The FAA is 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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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:

2022-21-15 Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH: Amendment 39-22214;
Docket No. FAA-2021-1070; Project Identifier 2020-CE-004-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective December 14,
2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Model DA 42,
DA 42 NG, and DA 42 M-NG airplanes, serial numbers 42.004 through
42.391, 42.394 through 42.396, 42.399 through 42.402, 42.405 through
42.416, 42.427, 42.AC001 through 42.AC135, 42.AC137 through
42.AC145, 42.AC148, 42.AC150 through 42.AC152, 42.MN001 through
42.MN034, 42.MN037 through 42MN042, 42.MN050 through 42.MN055,
42.MN057, 42.MN058, 42.MN100 through 42.MN103, 42.N001 through
42.N067, 42.N100 through 42.N250, 42.N300 through 42.N381, 42.N391,
42.NC001 through 42.NC004, and 42.NC006 through 42.NC008,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 5320, Fuselage
Miscellaneous Structure.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a loose rudder
T-yoke axle nut. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent movement of
the T-yoke axle. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could
result in reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Within 100 hours time-in-service after the effective date of
this AD or 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs first, replace rudder T-yoke axle part number (P/N) LN 9037-
M6x90 with rudder T-yoke axle P/N D60-5320-00-32 in accordance with
the Instructions, section III, in Diamond Aircraft Work Instruction
WI-RSB 42-139 and WI-RSB 42NG-081, Revision 1, dated October 24,
2019 (issued as one document) attached to Diamond Aircraft
Recommended Service Bulletin DAI RSB 42-139 and DAI RSB 42NG-081,
dated October 21, 2019.
    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install rudder
T-yoke axle P/N LN 9037-M6x90 on any airplane.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) and email to:
[email protected].
    (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.

(i) Additional Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Penelope Trease,
Aviation Safety Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA, 26805 E 68th Avenue, Denver,
CO 80249; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].
    (2) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2019-0302, dated December 13, 2019, for related information. This
EASA AD may be found in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2021-1070.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Diamond Aircraft Recommended Service Bulletin DAI RSB 42-139
and DAI RSB 42NG-081, dated October 21, 2019 (issued as one
document), published with DAI Work Instruction WI-RSB 42-139 and WI-
RSB 42NG-081, Revision 1, dated October 24, 2019 (issued as one
document) attached.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Stra[szlig]e 5, A-2700
Wiener Neustadt, Austria; phone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622
26780; email: [email protected]; website: diamondaircraft.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on October 7, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-24370 Filed 11-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59088-59089]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23361]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0017; Notice 2]

Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A., Inc., Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A., Inc., on behalf of Subaru of
America (Fuji), has determined that certain 2013 Subaru XV Crosstrek
passenger cars manufactured between May 17, 2012, and February 7, 2013,
do not fully comply with paragraphs S6.1 and S6.2 of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. Fuji has
filed an appropriate report dated January 29, 2013, pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Mr. Luis
Figueroa, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Fuji's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and
the rule implementing those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556, Fuji has
petitioned for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 39 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Notice of
receipt of the petition was published, with a 30 day public comment
period, on February 25, 2013 in the Federal Register (78 FR 12827). No
comments were received. To view the petition, and all supporting
documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site
at: http://www.regulations.gov/. The follow the online search
instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2013-0017.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 23,600 model year
2013 Subaru XV Crosstrek passenger cars manufactured between May 17,
2012, and February 7, 2013.
    III. Rule Text: Paragraphs S6.1 and S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205
specifically states:

    S6.1 A prime glazing material manufacturer must certify, in
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30115, each piece of glazing material to
which this standard applies that is designed--
    (a) As a component of any specific motor vehicle or camper; or
    (b) To be cut into components for use in motor vehicles or items
of motor vehicle equipment.
    S6.2 A prime glazing manufacturer certifies its glazing by
adding to the marks required by section 7 of ANSI Z26.1-1996, in
letters and numerals of the same size, the symbol ``DOT'' and a
manufacturer's code mark that NHTSA assigns to the manufacturer.

    IV. Summary of FUJI'S Analyses: Fuji explains that the
noncompliance is that, due to a labeling error, the glazing markings on
the rear window of the subject vehicles lack the symbol ``DOT'', the
manufacturer's code mark (i.e. 44), and the AS3 code mark and thus do
not conform to the requirements of 49 CFR 571.205 paragraphs S6.1 and
S6.2.
    Fuji contends that the rear glazing of the affected vehicles
otherwise meets all marking and performance requirements of FMVSS No.
205 and ANSI Z26.1 and NHTSA has previously noted that ``The stated
purposes of FMVSS No. 205 are to reduce injuries resulting from impact
to glazing surfaces, to ensure a necessary degree of transparency in
motor vehicle windows for driver visibility, and to minimize the
possibility of occupants being thrown through the vehicle windows in
collisions'' (64 FR 70116). Because the affected glazing fully meet all
of the applicable performance requirements, Fuji believes the absence
of the ``DOT'' symbol, the manufacturer's number (i.e. ``44''), and the
AS3 code mark have no effect upon the ability of the glazing to satisfy
these stated purposes and thus perform in the manner intended by FMVSS
No. 205.
    Fuji stated that it is not aware of any crashes, injuries, customer
complaints or field reports associated with this noncompliance.
    Fuji also expressed its belief that NHTSA has previously granted
similar petitions involving the omission of FMVSS No. 205 markings.
    Fuji has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliances so that all future

production of the vehicles will comply with FMVSS no 205.
    In summation, Fuji believes that the described noncompliance of its
vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition, to exempt it from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
    V. NHTSA'S Decision: FMVSS No. 205 specifies labeling and
performance requirements for automotive glazing. Paragraph S6 of FMVSS
No. 205 requires glazing material manufacturers to certify, in
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30115, each piece of glazing material to
which the standard applies. A prime glazing material manufacturer is
required to mark its glazing by adding the marks required in Section 7
of ANSI Z26.1 (1996) including the FMVSS certification symbol ``DOT,''
the item of glazing code mark (in this case ``AS3'') and a
manufacturer's code mark as assigned by the NHTSA's Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance (in this case ``44'').
    NHTSA has reviewed and accepts Fuji analyses that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Fuji has
provided documentation that the windows do comply with all safety
performance requirements of the standard. This documentation is a
surrogate for the FMVSS certification ``DOT'' labeling. NHTSA also
believes that the lack of the manufacturer's code and the item of
glazing code labeling would not result in inadvertent replacement of
the windows with the wrong glazing. Broken tempered glass can readily
be identified as tempered glass, rather than plastic or laminated
glass. Anyone who intended to replace the window with an identical
tempered glass window would have to obtain the glazing from Fuji or a
major automotive parts manufacturer since tempered glass automotive
windows cannot be easily manufactured by small field facilities. Fuji,
or an automotive parts supplier would be able to identify the correct
replacement window by use of their replacement parts identification
systems.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Fuji has
met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 205 noncompliance in
the glazing material identified in Fuji's Noncompliance Information
Report is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Fuji's
petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted from the obligation
of providing notification of, and a remedy for, that noncompliance
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to approximately 23,600 vehicles that Fuji no longer
controlled at the time that it determined that a noncompliance existed
in the subject vehicles. However, the granting of this petition does
not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the
sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control
after Fuji notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-23361 Filed 9-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1421-1422]
[FR Doc No: 2011-192]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

December 30, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1662-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Dominion Transmission, Inc. submits tariff filing per
154.204: DTI--Negotiated Rate Agreement to be effective 1/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101229-5119.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 10, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1663-000.
    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Kern River Gas Transmission Company submits tariff
filing per 154.204: 2010 December Clean-up Filing to be effective 2/1/
2011.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101229-5131.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 10, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1664-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. submits tariff
filing per 154.204: 12/29/10 Negotiated Rates--Tenaska to be effective
1/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101229-5141.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 10, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1665-000.
    Applicants: Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.203: Annual Flowthrough Crediting Mechanism to be effective N/
A.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101230-5023.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1666-000.
    Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC submits tariff
filing per 154.203: Annual Accounting Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101230-5024.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1667-000.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation submits tariff
filing per 154.204: 2011 January IG Rate to be effective 1/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101230-5057.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1668-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC submits tariff filing per
154.204: Negotiated Rate 2010-12-30 to be effective 1/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101230-5067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1669-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.403: EPC TETLP FEB 2011 FILING to be effective 2/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101230-5068.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 11, 2011.

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

of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-192 Filed 1-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P