[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 43 (Thursday, March 5, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11865]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05028]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 895

Banned Devices

CFR Correction

    In Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 800 to 1299,
revised as of April 1, 2014, on page 594, in Sec.  895.21, remove the
undesignated paragraph following paragraph (d)(8).

[FR Doc. 2015-05028 Filed 3-4-15; 08:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1505-01D


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16247-16248]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06748]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 32032; 812-14285]

Northern Lights Fund Trust and Princeton Fund Advisors, LLC;
Notice of Application

March 21, 2016.
AGENCY:  Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION:  Notice of an application under Section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from Section 15(a) of
the Act and Rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain
disclosure requirements in Rule 20a-1 under the Act, Item 19(a)(3) of
Form N-1A, Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of
Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 6-
07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X (``Disclosure Requirements'').
The requested exemption would permit an investment adviser to hire and
replace certain sub-advisers without shareholder approval and grant
relief from the Disclosure Requirements as they relate to fees paid to
the sub-advisers.

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

Applicants:  Northern Lights Fund Trust (the ``Trust''), a Delaware
statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management
investment company with multiple series, and Princeton Fund Advisors
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company registered as an investment
adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``the ``Adviser,''
and, collectively with the Trust, the ``Applicants'').

Filing Dates:  The application was filed March 6, 2014, and amended on
August 21, 2014, November 10, 2014, November 25, 2015, February 19,
2016, February 22, 2016, and March 16, 2016.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on April 18, 2016, and should be accompanied by proof of service
on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES:  Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Trust: James P. Ash,
Esq., Gemini Fund Services LLC, 80 Arkay Drive, Suite 110, Hauppage, NY
11788 and Adviser: Princeton Fund Advisors, LLC, 1125 17th Street,
Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Jean E. Minarick, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6811, or Daniele Marchesani, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Summary of the Application

    1. The Adviser will serve as the investment adviser to the Funds
pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with the Trust (the
``Advisory

Agreement'').\1\ The Adviser will provide the Funds with continuous and
comprehensive investment management services subject to the supervision
of, and policies established by, each Fund's board of trustees
(``Board''). The Advisory Agreement permits the Adviser, subject to the
approval of the Board, to delegate to one or more sub-advisers (each, a
``Sub-Adviser'' and collectively, the ``Sub-Advisers'') the
responsibility to provide the day-to-day portfolio investment
management of each Fund, subject to the supervision and direction of
the Adviser. The primary responsibility for managing the Funds will
remain vested in the Adviser. The Adviser will hire, evaluate, allocate
assets to and oversee the Sub-Advisers, including determining whether a
Sub-Adviser should be terminated, at all times subject to the authority
of the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request relief with respect to any existing and
any future series of the Trust and any other registered open-end
management company or series thereof that: (a) Is advised by the
Adviser or its successor or by a person controlling, controlled by,
or under common control with the Adviser or its successor (each,
also an ``Adviser''); (b) uses the manager of managers structure
described in the application; and (c) complies with the terms and
conditions of the application (any such series, a ``Fund'' and
collectively, the ``Funds''). For purposes of the requested order,
``successor'' is limited to an entity that results from a
reorganization into another jurisdiction or a change in the type of
business organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Applicants request an exemption to permit the Adviser, subject
to Board approval, to hire certain Sub-Advisers pursuant to Sub-
Advisory Agreements and materially amend existing Sub-Advisory
Agreements without obtaining the shareholder approval required under
Section 15(a) of the Act and Rule 18f-2 under the Act.\2\ Applicants
also seek an exemption from the Disclosure Requirements to permit a
Fund to disclose (as both a dollar amount and a percentage of the
Fund's net assets): (a) The aggregate fees paid to the Adviser; and (b)
the aggregate fees paid to Sub-Advisers other than Affiliated Sub-
Advisers; and (c) the fee paid to each Affiliated Sub-Adviser
(collectively, ``Aggregate Fee Disclosure'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The requested relief will not extend to any Sub-Adviser that
is an affiliated person, as defined in Section 2(a)(3) of the Act,
of a Fund or the Adviser, other than by reason of serving as a sub-
adviser to one or more of the Funds, or as an investment adviser or
subadviser to any fund of the Trust other than a Fund (``Affiliated
Sub-Adviser'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief
will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the Application.
Such terms and conditions provide for, among other safeguards,
appropriate disclosure to Fund shareholders and notification about sub-
advisory changes and enhanced Board oversight to protect the interests
of the Funds' shareholders.
    4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or
any rule thereunder, if such relief is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
Applicants believe that the requested relief meets this standard
because, as further explained in the Application, the Advisory
Agreements will remain subject to shareholder approval, while the role
of the Sub-Advisers is substantially similar to that of individual
portfolio managers, so that requiring shareholder approval of Sub-
Advisory Agreements would impose unnecessary delays and expenses on the
Funds. Applicants believe that the requested relief from the Disclosure
Requirements meets this standard because it will improve the Adviser's
ability to negotiate fees paid to the Sub-Advisers that are more
advantageous for the Funds.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-06748 Filed 3-24-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81427-81430]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31992]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0232; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-032-AD;
Amendment 39-16549; AD 2010-26-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 747-200C, -
200F, -400, -400D, and -400F Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), which applies to certain Model 747-200C, -200F, -400, -400D, and
-400F series airplanes. That AD currently requires repetitive
inspections for cracks in the overlapping (upper) skin of the upper
fastener row of the lap joints of the fuselage skin in sections 41, 42,
and 46; and related investigative and corrective actions, if necessary.
This new AD expands the inspection area in the existing AD, and adds a
modification of certain lap joints and certain post-repair inspections
of the lap joints. Accomplishing the modification would end the
repetitive inspections required by the existing AD for the length of
lap joint that is modified. This AD results from a structural review of
affected skin lap joints for widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing
this AD to prevent fatigue cracking in certain lap joints, which could
result in rapid depressurization of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective February 1, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of February 1,
2011.
    On April 13, 2006 (71 FR 12122, March 9, 2006), the Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain
other publication listed in the AD.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Han, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
917-6449; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2006-05-09, Amendment
39-14506 (71 FR 12122, March 9, 2006). The existing AD applies to
certain Model 747-200C, -200F, -400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 18, 2010 (75
FR 13046). That NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive
inspections for cracks in the overlapping (upper) skin of the upper
fastener row of the lap joints of the fuselage skin in Sections 41, 42,
and 46; and related investigative and corrective actions, if necessary.
That NPRM also proposed to expand the inspection area in the existing
AD, and add a modification of certain lap joints and certain post-
repair inspections of the lap joints. Accomplishing the modification
would end the repetitive inspections required by the existing AD.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been
received on the NPRM.

Request To Revise Certain Language in Paragraph (k) of the NPRM

    Boeing asked that we revise the language in paragraph (k) of the
NPRM to indicate that additional actions are required in the area of
the modification for operation beyond 15,000 total flight cycles after
doing the proposed modification. Boeing stated that Revision 2 of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499 is currently in work at the
Boeing Company, and that Revision 2 recommends accomplishing additional
actions after doing the modification.
    Since this comment was submitted, we have received and reviewed
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 2, dated August 12, 2010.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, dated August 11, 2005; and
Revision 1, dated October 30, 2008; were referred to in the NPRM as the
appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the
actions. No more work is necessary for airplanes on which Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 1, dated October 30, 2008, was
used for doing the required actions. Revision 2 of this service
bulletin moves certain airplanes from Group 1 to Groups 15 and 16, adds
post-modification actions, and contains editorial changes.
    We have revised paragraphs (c), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) of this
AD to refer to

Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 2, dated August 12, 2010.
In addition, we have removed Notes 1 and 2 of this AD since that
information is incorporated into Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2499,
Revision 2, dated August 12, 2010. We have also added a new paragraph
(n) to the AD to give credit for accomplishing the specified actions in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 1,
dated October 30, 2008.
    Although Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 2, dated
August 12, 2010, includes post-modification actions, this AD will not
mandate those actions. The threshold for the skin lap joint
modification mandated by this AD is 30,000 total flight cycles. Adding
15,000 flight cycles to the threshold would extend the compliance time
for the recommended additional actions to 45,000 total flight cycles.
We have determined that it is highly unlikely that a Model 747 airplane
will reach that number of total flight cycles. This determination also
takes into consideration the proposed wide spread fatigue damage (WFD)
operating rules imposing operating limits that could be significantly
lower than 45,000 total flight cycles.
    In light of these factors, we have determined that this final rule
must be issued without any further delay due to the severity of the
unsafe condition addressed by this AD. Further rulemaking might be
issued in the future to mandate the additional actions included in
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 2, dated August 12, 2010.
We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Delay AD Pending New Service Information

    Japan Airlines (JAL) asked that we delay issuance until the
manufacturer can release Revision 2 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2499. JAL stated that Boeing has issued Service Bulletin
Information Notices 747-53A2499 IN 01, dated April 2, 2009; and 747-
53A2499 IN 02, dated September 10, 2009; to Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 1, dated October 30, 2008, to notify
operators of a typo and revised drawings. JAL noted that operators
cannot accomplish a correct inspection and modification unless the
information provided in Boeing Service Bulletin Information Notices
747-53A2499 IN 01 and 747-53A2499 IN 02 is used. JAL added that
including Revision 2 of this service bulletin would reduce unnecessary
burden on both operators and the manufacturer.
    All Nippon Airways (ANA) also asked that the modification be done
in accordance with Revision 2 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2499 instead of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision
1, dated October 30, 2008. ANA stated that it has already performed the
terminating modification at stringer 6 using Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 1, and had to request AMOCs during the
modification because certain drawings in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2499, dated August 11, 2005; and Revision 1, dated October 30,
2008; were not specific to the modification. ANA added that this will
reduce the AMOC requests to this proposed AD, in addition to reducing
the maintenance burden.
    We partially agree with the commenters. We do not agree to delay
this AD, due to the severity of the unsafe condition. However, as
described previously, Boeing has issued Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
53A2499, Revision 2, dated August 12, 2010. Therefore, we have revised
the requirements in this AD to allow the use of Boeing Service Bulletin
747-53A2499, Revision 2, dated August 12, 2010, for accomplishing the
specified actions.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that
these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 735 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This AD affects 96 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 2006-05-09 and retained in this
AD take about 541 work-hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of
$85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the
currently required actions is $45,985 per airplane, per inspection
cycle.
    The new Area 2 inspections take about 124 work-hours per airplane,
at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures,
the estimated cost of the new inspections specified in this AD for U.S.
operators is $1,011,840, or $10,540 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
    The new modification takes about 4,799 work hours per airplane, at
an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost per
airplane will be minimal. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of
the new modification specified in this AD for U.S. operators is
$39,159,840, or $407,915 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing Amendment 39-14506 (71 FR 12122, March 9, 2006) and by adding
the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2010-26-10 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-16549. FAA-2010-0232;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-032-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective February 1, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2006-05-09.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-200C, -200F,
-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes, certificated in any
category; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2499,
Revision 2, dated August 12, 2010.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53:
Fuselage.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from a structural review of affected skin
lap joints for widespread fatigue damage. The Federal Aviation
Administration is issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking in
certain lap joints, which could result in rapid depressurization of
the airplane.

Compliance

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

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2006-05-09, With Revised Service
Information

Initial Inspections and Related Investigative and Corrective Actions

    (g) For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2499, dated August 11, 2005: At the applicable time specified
in Table 1 of this AD, do an external surface high frequency eddy
current (HFEC), external low frequency eddy current (LFEC), and
internal LFEC inspection, as applicable, for cracks in the
overlapping (upper) skin of the upper fastener row of the lap joints
of the fuselage skin in sections 41, 42, and 46, and any applicable
related investigative and corrective actions by doing all of the
actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, dated August 11, 2005; Revision
1, dated October 30, 2008; or Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2499,
Revision 2, dated August 12, 2010. Do any applicable related
investigative and corrective actions before further flight. As of
the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
53A2499, Revision 2, dated August 12, 2010, may be used.

                    Table 1--Initial Compliance Time
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 For airplanes on which Structural
Significant Items (SSIs) F-25G, F-                Inspect--
         25H, and F-25I--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Have not been inspected in      Before the accumulation of 22,000
 accordance with paragraph (i) of    total flight cycles, or within
 AD 2004-07-22 R1, Amendment 39-     1,000 flight cycles after April 13,
 15326, using the HFEC method.       2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-
                                     05-09), whichever occurs later.
(2) Have been inspected in          Within 3,000 flight cycles after the
 accordance with paragraph (i) of    most recent supplemental structural
 AD 2004-07-22 R1, using the HFEC    inspection document (SSID)
 method.                             inspection of each applicable
                                     structural significant item (as
                                     given in Boeing Document D6-35022,
                                     ``SSID for Model 747 Airplanes,''
                                     Revision G, dated December 2000),
                                     or within 1,000 flight cycles after
                                     April 13, 2006, whichever occurs
                                     later.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Repetitive Inspections

    (h) Repeat the applicable inspections required by paragraph (g)
of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' (including the note) of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, dated August 11, 2005; Revision 1,
dated October 30, 2008; or Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2499,
Revision 2, dated August 12, 2010. As of the effective date of this
AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 2, dated
August 12, 2010, may be used.

New Requirements of This AD

Repetitive Inspections/Investigative and Corrective Actions

    (i) For all airplanes: Do an external HFEC inspection of the lap
joints in Sections 41, 42, and 46 for cracks, by doing all the
actions, including all applicable related investigative and
corrective actions, specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 2, dated August 12,
2010. Do the inspection at the applicable time specified in
paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 2,
dated August 12, 2010; except as required by paragraph (m) of this
AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions
before further flight. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the times
specified in paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2499,
Revision 2, dated August 12, 2010. Accomplishment of the inspections
required by this paragraph terminates the inspections required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
    (j) For areas on which a lap joint repair was installed and the
repair doubler is greater than or equal to 40 inches long: Do
initial and repetitive internal HFEC inspections for cracks by doing
all the actions, including all applicable corrective actions,
specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 2, dated August 12, 2010, except as
required by paragraph (l) of this AD. Do the inspections and
corrective actions at the times specified in paragraph 1.E. of
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 2, dated August 12,
2010, except as required by paragraph (m) of this AD.

Terminating Action

    (k) Modify the applicable lap joints in Sections 41 and 42 by
doing all the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 2,
dated August 12, 2010, at the time specified in paragraph 1.E. of
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 2, dated August 12,
2010; except as required by paragraphs (l) and (m) of this AD.
Accomplishing this modification terminates the repetitive
inspections of the skin lap joints in Sections 41 and 42 required by
paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD for the length of lap joint that
is modified.

Exceptions to Service Bulletin Procedures

    (l) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 2, dated
August 12, 2010, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action:
Before further flight, repair the crack using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (o) of this
AD.
    (m) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision 2, dated
August 12, 2010, specifies a compliance time after the date of that
service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified
compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

Credit for Actions Done Using Previous Service Information

    (n) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499, Revision
1, dated October 30, 2008, are acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirements of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (o)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
Attn: Nicholas Han, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S,
FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may
be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) or other person authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to
make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair
must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval
must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2006-05-09
are approved as alternative methods of compliance with the
corresponding requirements of this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (p) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2499,
dated August 11, 2005; or Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2499,
Revision 2, dated August 12, 2010; as applicable; to do the actions
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2499,
Revision 2, dated August 12, 2010, under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51.
    (2) The Director of the Federal Register previously approved the
incorporation by reference of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2499, dated August 11, 2005, on April 13, 2006 (71 FR 12122,
March 9, 2006).
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 13, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-31992 Filed 12-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


              OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY
AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
              OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY
AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

MEMORANDUM

DATE:	March 31, 2015

SUBJECT:	Tier I Estimated Drinking Waters Concentrations of Etoxazole, and Its Transformation Products R-8 and R-13, for the Use in the Human Health Risk Assessment: Petition to Establish Import Tolerances for Etoxazole in or on the Raw Agricultural Commodity Orange and in or on Orange, Oil
		(PC Code 107091; DP Barcode 426353)

TO:		Rita Kumar, Risk Manager Reviewer
		Mark Suarez, Review Manager #7
		Meredith Laws, Branch Chief
		Invertebrate-Vertebrate Branch 3
		Registration Division (7505P)

AND:		Thomas Bloem, Risk Assessor
      Charles Smith, Branch Chief
		Registration Action Branch 1
		Health Effects Division (7509P)

FROM:	José Meléndez, Chemist
		Environmental Risk Branch 5
		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

THROUGH:	Mah T. Shamim, Ph.D., Branch Chief
            Environmental Risk Branch 5
		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

This memo presents the Tier I Estimated Surface Drinking Water Concentrations and Estimated Ground Water Concentrations (EDWCs) for etoxazole and its transformation products R-8 and R-13 [as per the request of the Metabolism Assessment Review Committee (or MARC), DP Barcode D288817, 04/23/2003], calculated using the Tier I surface water aquatic model FIRST and the Tier I/II groundwater model PRZM-GW (in the tier I mode), for use in the human health risk assessment.  Valent U.S.A. Corporation submitted on behalf of Sumitomo Chemical Latin America, a petition to establish import tolerances for etoxazole in or on the raw agricultural commodity orange and in or on orange, oil.

Based on an inspection of the uses of etoxazole, it has been found that the previously modeled crop mint represents a scenario with the highest exposure and consequently the highest surface water EDWCs (with single application rates of 0.18 lb a.i./A and seasonal rates of 0.36 lb a.i./A, i.e., two applications at the maximum rate are allowed).  Therefore, the estimated drinking water concentrations in surface waters do not change from the previous ones.  However, the estimated drinking waters concentrations in groundwater have not been previously calculated using the new model PRZM-GW.

The purpose of this drinking water assessment (DWA) is to update previous results by adding the PRZM-GW modeling results (for details refer to the Appendix A).  For an electronic copy of the previous drinking water assessment (DWA, DP Barcode D386080, dated 01/31/2011) see Attachment I.  The attachment has a summary of environmental fate for etoxazole, the nomenclature, and structures of R-8 and R-13.  Since the previous DWA, for the crop mint a single application at 0.18 lb a.i./A was approved (instead of the previously modeled two applications); therefore, the highest exposure scenario is currently corn, with two applications at 0.135 lb a.i./A and an interval between applications of 14 days.  For that reason, for the groundwater assessment corn was modeled instead of mint.  For additional details about the modeling approach, refer to the Appendix A.

The Tier I EDWCs for etoxazole and for its major transformation products R-8 and R-13 (as per the request of the MARC in 2003), calculated using FIRST (surface water) and PRZM-GW (groundwater) for use in the human health risk assessment were as shown in Table 1.  A more definitive assessment could be performed, using Tier II aquatic models SWCC and possible additional refinements to PRZM-GW.  Should any questions arise, please, contact Jose Melendez at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Table 1.  Tier I Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) for human health drinking water risk assessment application of etoxazole, based on a seasonal application on mint at 0.36 lb a.i./A/season[1] (surface waters) or corn at 0.27 lb a.i./A/season (groundwater).
Chemical
                           Acute EDWC Surface Water
                                FIRST (ppb)[2]
                                 Chronic EDWC
                                 Surface Water
                                FIRST (ppb)[2]
                          Max. Acute EDWC Groundwater
                               PRZM-GW (ppb)[3]
                Max. Chronic EDWC Groundwater  PRZM-GW (ppb)[3]
Etoxazole
                                     6.07
                                     0.618
                                    <0.1
                                    <0.1
R-8
                                     8.03
                                     4.08

R-13
                                     1.63
                                     0.063

[1] For the use on mint, the current maximum seasonal rate is 0.18 lb a.i./A.  Presented results are from the previous DWA (DP Barcode D386080, dated 01/31/2011).
[2] Results presented in ppb of each of the chemicals, as opposed to ppb of parent equivalent.
[3] Groundwater results are for the total toxic residues (parent + R-8 + R-13), expressed in ppb parent equivalent.  For all six standard scenarios, breakthrough was incomplete.  EDWCs are low compared to surface water EDWCs.

Identification of specific data gaps:
The environmental fate data base for etoxazole was found to be adequate for a Tier 1 drinking water assessment.  In the Problem Formulation for Registration Review (DP Barcode D418231, dated 07/01/2014), aerobic and anaerobic aquatic metabolism studies were required.

Appendix A. Tier 1 Groundwater PRZM-GW EDWCs

The PRZM-GW generated EDWCs for the total toxic residues of human health concern (TTRs included etoxazole, R-8 and R-13), for the use on corn, are summarized in Table A-2.

Conceptual Model

Figure A-1 depicts the general groundwater scenario concept for estimating pesticide concentrations in drinking water as implemented in PRZM-GW. This conceptual model is based on a rural drinking water well beneath an agricultural field (a high pesticide use area) drawing from an unconfined, high water-table aquifer.

Figure A-1. General Groundwater Scenario Concept for Estimating Pesticide Concentrations in Drinking Water as Implemented in PRZM-GW; The black line through the soil profile represents the decline in degradation with respect to the depth.

The depth of the well is site specific (i.e., scenario specific). The well extends into a shallow unconfined aquifer and has a well-screen that starts at the top and extends down into the aquifer. The length of the well-screen represents the region of the aquifer where drinking water is collected. The well-screen length is well-specific and can be adjusted.  Processes included in the conceptual model that influence pesticide transport through the soil profile include water flow, chemical specific dissipation and transportation parameters (i.e., degradation and sorption), and crop specific factors, including transpiration, pesticide interception and management practices.

The following is a brief description of the PRZM-GW model.  More information is available at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm#przm_gw (accessed 03/20/2015).

      Tier 1 groundwater estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for a chemical, resulting from its use for bare ground pre-plant applications were derived with PRZM-GW (Pesticide Root Zone Model for Groundwater, version 1.07, March 6, 2014), using the GW-GUI (Graphical User Interface, version 1.07, March 6, 2014).  PRZM-GW is a one-dimensional, finite-difference model that estimates the concentrations of pesticides in groundwater.  It accounts for pesticide fate in the crop root zone by simulating pesticide transport and degradation through the soil profile after a pesticide is applied to an agricultural field. PRZM-GW permits the assessment of multiple years of pesticide application (up to 100 years) on a single site.  Six standard scenarios, each representing a different region known to be vulnerable to groundwater contaminations, are available for use with PRZM-GW for risk assessment purposes.  In PRZM-GW simulations, each of these standard scenarios was used.  PRZM-GW output values represent pesticide concentrations in a vulnerable groundwater supply that is located directly beneath a rural agricultural field.

Input Parameters for PRZM-GW and Results

For input parameters used in this model, refer to Table A-1.  In the previous DWA, each of the degradates was modeled separately, using the residue summation approach; however, in the Problem Formulation for Registration Review (refer to Appendix E of DP Barcode D418231, dated 07/01/2014), the half-lives for the total toxic residues (TTRs) that included the parent compound plus R-8 plus R-13 were calculated and used in this assessment (total residue approach).

Table A-1. Etoxazole total toxic residues (TTRs) PRZM-GW Input Parameters for modeling applications of the chemical on corn
                               PARAMETER (units)
                                   VALUE[1]
                                    SOURCE
                                    COMMENT
App date (day/month)
                                     15-04
Apps are set to occur between emergence and harvest with PHI for corn of 21 days.
Delmarva emergence 10-04, crop maturation 30-05, harvest 15-06

                                     01-06

FL citrus crop emergence 01-01, crop maturation 01-02, harvest 31-12

                                     01-04

FL potatoes emergence 15-02, crop maturation 01-05, harvest 01-06

                                     01-08

GA coast emergence 01-05, crop maturation 01-08, harvest 01-10

                                     01-09

NC coast emergence 15-05, crop maturation 01-08, harvest 01-11

                                     15-08

WI sand emergence 01-05, crop maturation 21-07, harvest 20-10
Maximum Application Rate (kg a.i./ha)
                                     0.151
Max in the label for sample product ZEAL[(R)] WDG Miticide, EPA Reg. No. 59639-123.
Maximum application rate is 0.135 lb a.i./A x 2 applications at 21day intervals.  See Table A-1.
Number of Applications per Year
                                       2

Retreatment Intervals (days)
                                      14

Chemical Application Method (CAM)
                                       2
                                     Label
Foliar
Incorporation Depth (cm)
                                      0.0

---
Air diffusion coefficient (cm[2]/day)
                                      0.0
                                      N/A
Assuming no volatilization.
Vaporization enthalpy (kcal/mol)
                                      0.0
                                      N/A
Assuming no volatilization.
Henry's Law Constant (atm-m[3]/mol)
                                      0.0
                                      N/A
Assuming no volatilization.
Partition Coefficient
(Kd; mL/g)
                                      151
                    45090024, 45090026, 46299905, 46299906
Represents the average Kd value among eight values ranging from 66 to 335 ml/g; the Kd model was utilized because it represents the mobility of etoxazole better than KOC (i.e., binding is not correlated with OC.
Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life at 25°C (days)

                                      370
                         45090019, 45090021, 45090022
90[th] percentile confidence bound on the mean half-life value: three values are available: 234 days and 525 days at 20°C, and 66.3 days at 25°C; respective half-lives corrected to 25°C are 165 days, 371 days and 66.3 days; mean = 200.77 days, std. dev. = 155.47 days, n = 3, t90,n-1 = 1.886
Hydrolysis Half-life (days)
                                      99
                                   45090017
Etoxazole shows relatively high stability in pH 7 solution.
1 Parameters are selected as per "Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters for Modeling Pesticide Concentrations in Groundwater Using the Pesticide Root Zone Model" v.1.0, dated October 15, 2012.

Modeling results are provided in Table A-2.

Table A-2. Etoxazole total toxic residues (TTRs) Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) resulting from the use of the chemical on corn
                                 Crop/Scenario
                              Highest Daily Value
                                    (ug/L)
                           Post Breakthrough Average
                                    (ug/L)
                     Average Simulation Breakthrough Time
                                    (days)
                            Corn/Tier I Delmarva[1]
                                       0
                                 Incomplete[2]
                                 Incomplete[2]
                           Corn/Tier I FL citrus[1]
                                1.43 x 10[-12]
                                 Incomplete[2]
                                 Incomplete[2]
                          Corn/Tier I FL potatoes[1]
                               1.76 x 10[-1][4]
                                 Incomplete[2]
                                 Incomplete[2]
                            Corn/Tier I GA coast[1]
                                       0
                                 Incomplete[2]
                                 Incomplete[2]
                            Corn/Tier I NC coast[1]
                                       0
                                 Incomplete[2]
                                 Incomplete[2]
                            Corn/Tier I WI sand[1]
                                       0
                                 Incomplete[2]
                                 Incomplete[2]
1 This scenario was run with an extended weather file.
2 Incomplete despite running an extended weather file.
Attachment I. Electronic Copy of the Previous Drinking Water Assessment (DP Barcode D386080, dated 01/31/2011)


 EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: Shaunta Hill,<PHONE_NUMBER>   Quimica Agronomica de Mexico, S. de R.L. MI.

PP0E7754

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP0E7754) from Quimica Agronomica de Mexico, [S. de R.L. MI., Calle 18 N° 20501, Colonia Impulso, C.P. 31183, Chihuahua, Chih., Mexico] proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.  by establishing an import tolerance for residues of  Gentamicin in or on the raw agricultural commodity cucurbits (crop group 9) and fruiting vegetables (crop group 8) at 0.05 and 0.05 parts per million (ppm).  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism.  As with the regulation of agricultural use of streptomycin and tetracycline, plant metabolism of widely-used antibiotics is not a concern.  The residues detected in food crops are negligible and these products are very resistant to conversion to other products.

              	2. Analytical method. An analytical method was developed and used to quantitate residues of Gentamicin and Oxytetracycline.  Briefly, residues of Gentamicin were extracted from  samples.  The extraction was conducted with a homogenizer and extracts were centrifuged and decanted into a mixing cylinder.  Extraction buffer and methanol were added to the centrifuge tube, centrifuged, and shaken a total of two times, with each extract combined in the mixing cylinder.  The sample was brought to final volume with water and mixed in preparation for LC/MS/MS analysis.  The limits of quantitation (LOQ), in all matrices, were 0.03 ppm for Gentamicin.  The limit of detection (LOD), in all matrices, was defined as 0.01 ppm for Gentamicin (1/3 the LOQ).

	3. Magnitude of residues. Fruiting vegetable and cucurbit residue studies show that there will be no quantifiable Gentamicin residues found in the raw agricultural commodities resulting from the proposed use rate and timing for crops grown in Mexico using an analytical method with limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.03 ppm.  Processing studies demonstrate that Gentamicin residues do not concentrate in processed fractions.

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  The acute oral LD50 of Gentamicin sulfate in mice has been reported to be 10,000 mg/kg body weight. The low toxicity of Gentamicin sulfate is attributed to the fact that < 1% of oral doses are absorbed across the gastrointestinal tract into systemic circulation.  Gentamicin sulfate is not absorbed through intact skin efficiently enough to cause systemic effects. Acute inhalation studies show low pulmonary absorption of Gentamicin sulfate that resulted in no adverse effects in organs or potentially toxic serum levels. Ocular effects are limited mainly to reversible irritation responses following multiple treatments.  Gentamicin sulfate is a non-sensitizer and is not a primary skin irritant.       No adverse effect resulting from a single-oral exposure was identified. Therefore, Gentamicin is not expected to pose an acute risk.

	2. Genotoxicty. The Agency has previously concluded that "Gentamicin is not likely to pose genotoxic hazards" (EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0234-0022).

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. The Agency has concluded "no evidence of increased susceptibility in the developmental studies in rats, rabbits, mice, and guinea pigs.  There is no evidence of increased susceptibility in the 2-generation reproduction study in rats"   (EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0234-0022).

	4. Subchronic toxicity. There is no 21-day dermal toxicity study because Gentamicin sulfate is not absorbed though intact skin. Likewise there are no Gentamicin sulfate dietary subchronic studies because less than 1% of an oral dose is absorbed into the systemic circulation. Daily subcutaneous injections of Gentamicin sulfate into rats for 28 days resulted in a NOEL of 5 mg/kg body weight/day, which is equivalent to daily oral doses of 500 mg kg body weight/day.

	5. Chronic toxicity. The Agency has set  a chronic reference dose of 0.1 mg/kg/day on the basis of a 90-day toxicity study in the dog where the NOAEL was 10 mg/kg/day.  Uncertainty factors based on interspecies extrapolation (10X), intraspecies variability (10X) and FQPA 1X safety factor were used to calculate the chronic PAD (EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0234-0022).

	6. Animal metabolism. Metabolism of Gentamicin sulfate is negligible resulting in renal excretion of the unchanged parent compound (EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0234-0022).

	7. Metabolite toxicology. There are no known metabolites of toxicological concern.

	8. Endocrine disruption. No specific tests have been conducted with Gentamicin sulfate to determine whether the chemical may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring hormone. However, a long history of human use has given no indication that would suggest that Gentamicin sulfate produces effects characteristic of the disruption of endocrine hormones.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. Tolerances have been established for residues of Gentamicin sulfate and Gentamicin in animal tissues resulting from veterinary treatment (21 CFR 556.300). A tolerance of 0.1 ppm is established for negligible residues of Gentamicin sulfate in the uncooked edible tissues of chickens and turkeys. Tolerances are established for total residues of Gentamicin in edible tissues of swine as follows: 0.1 ppm muscle, 0.3 ppm in liver, and 0.4 ppm in fat and kidney.  Quimica Agronomica de Mexico S. de R.L.MI. is requesting additional tolerances for Gentamicin from application as the sulfate salt at 0.05 ppm for fruiting vegetables and cucurbits.

	i. Food. For purposes of assessing the potential aggregate exposure from food under existing and proposed tolerances, dietary exposure is based on a Tier I DEEM-FCID v 2.16 (tolerance level residues assumed with 100% crop treated) which is a worst-case estimate of the level of residues consumed.        No adverse effect resulting from a single-oral exposure was identified. Therefore, no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Gentamicin is not expected to pose an acute risk.       A chronic NOEL of 10 mg/kg/day determined for Gentamicin in a 90-day toxicity study in the dog was used for the dietary risk assessment. Ten-fold safety factors were applied for intra- and interspecies variables. The chronic exposure values using mean consumption data were 0.000193 mg/kg body weight/day for the general population and 0.000379 mg/kg body weight/day for children 3-5 years, the most exposed subpopulation group.

	ii. Drinking water. There are no potential drinking water sources of exposure to Gentamicin for the general population to residues of Gentamicin due to the fact the action being requested is to establish an import tolerance, only and there is no domestic registration of Gentamicin.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. There are no potential non-dietary sources of exposure to Gentamicin for the general population to residues of Gentamicin.

D. Cumulative Effects	The USEPA has not determined that Gentamicin sulfate has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For the purposes of this petition, only the potential risks of Gentamicin in its aggregate exposure will be considered.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. No adverse effect resulting from a single-oral exposure was identified; therefore, no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, Gentamicin is not expected to pose an acute risk. 	A chronic NOAEL of 10 mg/kg/day determined for Gentamicin in a 90-day toxicity study in the dog was used for the dietary risk assessment. Ten-fold safety factors were applied for intra- and interspecies variables. Chronic dietary exposure to Gentamicin from food only exposure utilizes <1.0% of the chronic reference dose for the general population group.

	2. Infants and children.  	Chronic dietary exposure to Gentamicin from food utilizes 0.8% of the cRfD for children 3-5 years, the most sensitive subpopulation group.

F. International Tolerances  Canada, Mexico or the Codex Alimentarius Commission have not established maximum residue levels for residues of Gentamicin in food commodities.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 4190]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01219]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-0803]

Advisory Committee; Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety
Standards Committee; Renewal

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; renewal of Federal advisory committee.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
renewal of the Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety Standards
Committee by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner). The
Commissioner has determined that it is in the public interest to renew
the Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety Standards Committee
for an additional 2 years beyond the charter expiration date. The new
charter will be in effect until December 24, 2024.

DATES: Authority for the Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety
Standards Committee will expire on December 24, 2024, unless the
Commissioner formally determines that renewal is in the public
interest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Akinola Awojope, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5216, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
636-0512, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.65 and approval by
the Department of Health and Human Services and by the General Services
Administration, FDA is announcing the renewal of the Technical
Electronic Product Radiation Safety Standards Committee. The committee
is a non-discretionary Federal advisory committee established to
provide advice and consultation to the Commissioner. The Commissioner
is charged with the administration of the Radiation Control for Health
and Safety Act of 1968. This Act creates the Technical Electronic
Product Radiation Safety Standards Committee and requires the
Commissioner to consult with the Committee before prescribing standards
for radiation emissions from electronic products. This Committee
provides advice and consultation to the Commissioner on the technical
feasibility, reasonableness, and practicability of performance
standards for electronic products to control the emission of radiation
from such products, and may recommend electronic product radiation
safety standards to the Commissioner for consideration.
    The Committee shall consist of 15 voting members including the
Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner or
designee from among authorities knowledgeable in the fields of science
or engineering applicable to electronic product radiation safety.
Members will be invited to serve for overlapping terms of up to 4
years. Terms of more than 2 years are contingent upon the renewal of
the Committee by appropriate action prior to its expiration. Voting
members will include five members selected from governmental agencies,
including State and Federal Governments, five members from the affected
industries, and five members from the general public, of which at least
one shall be a representative of organized labor. A quorum shall
consist of 10 members, of which at least 3 shall be from the general
public, 3 from the government agencies, and 3 from the affected
industries.
    Further information regarding the most recent charter and other
information can be found at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Radiation-EmittingProducts/TechnicalElectronicProductRadiationSafetyStandardsCommittee/default.htm
or by contacting the Designated Federal Officer (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). In light of the fact that no change has been made
to the committee name or description of duties, no amendment will be
made to 21 CFR 14.100.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app.). For general information related to FDA advisory
committees, please visit us at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

    Dated: January 18, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-01219 Filed 1-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 39 (Wednesday, February 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 13395]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04578]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Availability of Draft Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA) Section 810 Subsistence Evaluation.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA announces the availability and request for comments of
a draft ANILCA Section 810 Subsistence Evaluation for proposed
improvements to the runway safety areas at the Kodiak Airport, Kodiak,
Alaska.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments or request for copies or more
information by any of the following methods:
    1. Web Site: Download a copy of the draft Section 810 Subsistence
Evaluation or full Draft EIS document at: http://www.kodiakairporteis.com
    2. Email: Leslie.Grey<EMAIL_ADDRESS>include
``Kodiak Airport EIS ANILCA comments'' in the subject line of the
message.
    3. Fax: Attn: Leslie Grey, AAL-614,<PHONE_NUMBER>
    4. U.S. Mail: Leslie Grey--AAL-614, Federal Aviation
Administration, Airports Division, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box
14, Anchorage, AK 99513.
    5. In-Person Pickup or Drop-off: To pick up a copy or drop off
comments call or email Leslie Grey in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie Grey, AAL-614, Federal Aviation
Administration, Alaskan Region, Airports Division, 222 W. 7th Avenue,
Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513. Ms. Grey may be contacted during
business hours at<PHONE_NUMBER> (phone) and<PHONE_NUMBER> (Fax) or
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Alternatives proposed as part of the Draft
EIS as published in the Federal Register of October 23, 2012 (77 FR
64836) would require placement of fill on submerged lands jointly
managed by the U.S. Coast Guard Kodiak Base Support Unit and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3120; 16 U.S.C. 3164.

    Issued in Anchorage, Alaska on February 21, 2013.
Annie Aquino-Bernaldo,
Acting Manager, Airports Division, Alaskan Region.
[FR Doc. 2013-04578 Filed 2-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 53578-53579]
[DOCID:fr19oc09-110]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0271]

Identification of Interstate Motor Vehicles: New York City, Cook
County and New Jersey Tax Identification Requirements; Petition for
Determination

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Petition for Determination; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA is inviting all interested persons to comment on three
petitions submitted by the American Trucking Associations (ATA)
requesting determinations that the Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV)
identification requirements imposed by the State of New Jersey, New
York City, and Cook County, Illinois are preempted by Federal law. The
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) prohibits States and their political
subdivisions from requiring motor carriers to display in or on CMVs any
form of identification other than forms required by the Secretary of
Transportation, with certain exceptions. FMCSA seeks comment on whether
the credential display requirements described below are preempted or
whether they qualify for the relevant exception codified at 49 U.S.C.
14506(b)(3).

DATES: Comments are due on or before November 18, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System Number in the heading of this document by any of the
following methods. Do not submit the same comments by more than one
method. However, to allow effective public participation before the
comment period deadline, the Agency encourages use of the Web site that
is listed first. It will provide the most efficient and timely method
of receiving and processing your comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Ground floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number for this action. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Refer to the Privacy Act heading on
http://www.regulations.gov for further information.
    Public Participation: The regulations.gov system is generally
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can find
electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the
``Help'' section of the Web site. For notification that FMCSA received
the comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or
postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that appears after
submitting comments on line. Copies or abstracts of all documents
referenced in this notice are in the docket: FMCSA-2009-0271. For
access to the docket to read background documents or comments received,
go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. All comments
received before the close of business on the comment closing date
indicated above will be considered and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received after
the closing date will be considered to the extent practicable. FMCSA
may, however, issue a final determination at any time after the close
of the comment period. In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also
continue to file in the public docket relevant information that becomes
available after the comment closing date. Interested persons should
monitor the public docket for new material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Genevieve D. Sapir, Office of the
Chief Counsel, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    New Jersey's Tax Code requires all motor carriers hauling,
transporting, or delivering fuel to display a Motor Fuel Transport
License Plate and annual Transport License Certificate. This
requirement applies to all motor carriers hauling, transporting, or
delivering fuel in New Jersey regardless of their State of domicile or
registration. New Jersey Statutes Annotated Sec.  54:39-41 and Sec.
54:39-53.
    New York City's Administrative Code requires CMVs used principally
in the city or used principally in connection with a business carried
on within the city to pay a tax and display a stamp. The requirement
appears to apply whether or not the CMV is registered to an address in
New York City.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Chapter 8 of Title 11 of the New York City Administrative
Code Tax on Commercial Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicles for
Transportation of Passengers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cook County's Code of Ordinances requires motor vehicle owners
residing within the unincorporated area of Cook County to: (a) Display
a window sticker showing payment of fees; and (b) paint business
vehicle identification information on their vehicles. Article XIV of
chapter 74 of the Cook County Code of Ordinances is referred to as the
``Cook County Wheel Tax on Motor Vehicles Ordinance,'' and was amended
most recently on March 4, 2009.
    Section 4306 of SAFETEA-LU, codified at 49 U.S.C. 14506(a),
prohibits States from requiring motor carriers to display in or on CMVs
any form of identification other than forms required by the Secretary
of Transportation. However, Sec.  14506(b)(3) provides, in part, that
``a State may continue to require display of credentials that are
required * * * under a State law regarding motor vehicle license plates
or other displays that the Secretary determines are appropriate.'' This
authority has been delegated to FMCSA by 49 CFR 1.73 (a)(7). FMCSA
believes that Congress intended to limit the exception at Sec.
14506(b)(3) to two categories of requirements. The first includes
identification requirements related to motor vehicle license plates.
The second includes any other identification displays that the
Secretary of Transportation approves.
    FMCSA seeks comment on whether the referenced identification
display requirements are preempted by Federal law. Specifically, the
Agency seeks comment on: (1) Whether New Jersey's, New York City's,
and/or Cook County's credential display requirements qualify as
identification requirements related to motor vehicle license plates;
and/or (2) whether there is any other reason FMCSA should consider
approving these requirements under 49 U.S.C.

14506(b)(3). ATA's petitions seeking determinations, along with the
applicable statutes, regulations and ordinances, are available in the
docket established for this Notice for inspection.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA invites the three affected jurisdictions, as well as any
other interested party, to comment on the limited issue of whether New
Jersey's, New York City's, and/or Cook County's credential display
requirements are preempted in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 14506.
Interested parties are requested to limit their comments to this issue.
FMCSA has no authority to review the imposition, amounts, or collection
of any taxes for which the credentials are issued. FMCSA encourages
commenters to submit data or legal authorities supporting their
position.

    Issued on: September 25, 2009.
Rose A. McMurray,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-25093 Filed 10-16-09; 8:45 am]


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5642-5644]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00977]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard; General Motors LLC

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the General Motors LLC's (GM)
petition for an exemption of the Chevrolet Volt vehicle line in
accordance with 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard. This petition is granted because the agency has
determined that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as
standard equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard (Theft Prevention Standard).

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2018 model year (MY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, W43-
443, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's
phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated October 6, 2016, GM
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the Chevrolet Volt vehicle line beginning with
MY 2018. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking
pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard
equipment for the entire vehicle line.
    Under 49 CFR part 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to
grant an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its
petition, GM provided a detailed description and diagram of the
identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft
device for the MY 2018 Chevrolet Volt vehicle line. GM stated that its
Chevrolet Volt vehicle line will be installed with the PASS-Key III+
antitheft device as standard equipment. The PASS-Key III+ is a passive,
transponder based, electronic engine immobilizer antitheft device. GM
stated that a keyless ignition system will be installed on its
Chevrolet Volt vehicle line. Key components of its PASS-Key III+ system
will include an electronically-coded ignition key, a body control
module (BCM) with integrated PASS-Key III+ controller, engine control
module (ECM), immobilizer exciter module, radio frequency (RF) receiver
module, passive antenna module and low frequency antennas (LF). The
electronic key is incorporated within a remote key fob. The key fob
contains buttons to perform normal remote keyless door entry functions.
GM stated that the device will provide protection against unauthorized
use (i.e., starting and engine fueling), but will not provide any
visible or audible indication of unauthorized vehicle entry (i.e.,
flashing lights or horn alarm).
    GM's submission is considered a complete petition as required by 49
CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in Sec.
543.5 and the specific content requirements of Sec.  543.6.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, GM
provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed
device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, GM
conducted tests based on its own specified standards. GM provided
information on the specific tests it uses to validate the integrity,
durability and reliability of the PASS-Key III+ device and believes
that the device is reliable and durable since the components must
operate as designed after each test. GM also stated that the design and
assembly processes of the PASS-Key III+ subsystem and components are
validated for 10 years of vehicle life and 150,000 miles of
performance. The PASS-Key III+ incorporates a higher level of
electrical sophistication by utilizing an electronic key that is
protected from electrical duplication.
    GM stated that the PASS-Key III+ device is designed to be active at
all times without direct intervention by the vehicle operator. No
separate intentional action to turn on the security system is needed to
achieve protection. Activation of the device occurs when the operator
pushes the engine Start/Stop switch to the ``OFF'' position.
Deactivation of the immobilizer device occurs when a valid key and
matching immobilization code is verified, allowing the engine to start
and continue normal operations. When the operator pushes the Engine
Start/Stop switch to begin vehicle operation, the vehicle transmits
randomly generated data and a vehicle identifier within the passenger
compartment of the vehicle through three low-frequency antennas that is
controlled by the passive antenna module. The electronic key receives
the data and compares its vehicle identifier with the identifier
previously assigned to the vehicle. If the vehicle identifier matches
the identifier of the vehicle for which the key is programmed, the
electronic key will transmit a response through the RF channel to a
vehicle mounted receiver. The PASS-Key III+ control module receives the
RF transmission and compares the received response with an internally
calculated response. If the values match, the key is recognized as
valid and a password is then transmitted through a serial data link to
the ECM to enable fueling and vehicle starting. If an invalid key code
is detected, the system will not transmit a password to the ECM to
allow operation of the vehicle. Additionally, if an invalid electronic
key code is received, the vehicle will not be allowed to transition
from the ``Off'' mode to the ``Accessory'', ``On'', or ``Start'' mode
positions inhibiting starting, ignition, and fuel flow of the vehicle.
    GM further stated that the ignition key contains electronics which
provides billions of possible electronic combinations. The electronics
receive energy and data from the antenna module. Upon receipt of the
data, and a vehicle indicator match, the electronic key will calculate
a response to the data using an internal encryption algorithm and
transmit the response back to the vehicle. The antenna module then
translates the radio frequency signal received from the key into a
digital signal and passes the signal on to the controller module. The
controller module then compares the received response to an internally
calculated value. If the values match, the key is recognized as valid
and a password is transmitted through a serial data link to the ECM to
enable fueling and vehicle starting. GM also stated that a secondary
data challenge and response process using another encryption algorithm
must be validated by the engine controller to allow continued
operation. If an invalid key code is received, the PASS-Key III+
controller module will send a ``Disable Password'' to the engine
control module and starting, ignition, and fuel flow will be inhibited.
    GM stated that the PASS-Key III+ device has been designed to
enhance the functionality and theft protection provided by its first,
second and third generation PASS-Key, PASS-Key II, and PASS-Key III
devices. GM also referenced data provided by the American Automobile
Manufacturers Association (AAMA) in support of the effectiveness of
GM's PASS-Key devices in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft
found in the AAMA's comments referencing the agency's Preliminary
Report on ``Auto Theft and Recovery Effects of the Anti-Car Theft Act
of 1992 and the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984'',
(Docket 97-042; Notice 1).
    GM also noted that theft data have indicated a decline in theft
rates for vehicle lines equipped with comparable devices that have
received full exemptions from the parts-marking requirements. GM stated
that the theft data, as provided by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and compiled
by the agency, show that theft rates are lower for exempted GM models
equipped with the PASS-Key like systems than the theft rates for
earlier models with similar appearance and construction that were
parts-marked. Based on the performance of the PASS-Key, PASS-Key II,
and PASS-Key III devices on other GM models, and the advanced
technology utilized in PASS-Key III+, GM believes that the PASS-Key
III+ device will be more effective in deterring theft than the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541.
    GM stated that it believes that PASS-Key III+ devices will be at
least as effective in deterring theft as the parts-marking requirements
and that the agency should find that installation of the PASS-Key III+
device on the Chevrolet Volt vehicle line is sufficient to qualify it
for full exemption from the parts-marking requirements.

    Based on the evidence submitted by GM, the agency believes that the
antitheft device for the Chevrolet Volt vehicle line is likely to be as
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance
with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard
(49 CFR 541).
    GM's proposed device lacks an audible or visible alarm. Therefore,
this device cannot perform one of the functions listed in 49 CFR part
543.6(a)(3), that is, to call attention to unauthorized attempts to
enter or move the vehicle. The agency concludes that the device will
provide the four of the five types of performance listed in Sec.
543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; preventing defeat or circumvention
of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the
vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and
durability of the device.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part
541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541. The agency
finds that GM has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for the Chevrolet Volt vehicle line is likely to be as
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance
with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard
(49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information GM
provided about its device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full GM's
petition for exemption for the Chevrolet Volt vehicle line from the
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541 beginning with the 2018
model year. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-1,
identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention
Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR part 543.7(f) contains
publication requirements incident to the disposition of all part 543
petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product
nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is granted
and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order
to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from
the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
    If GM decides not to use the exemption for this line, it should
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR parts 541.5
and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if GM wishes in the future to modify the device on
which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a
petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a part 543
exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under
this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's
exemption is based. Further, part 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend in drafting part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which
might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2017-00977 Filed 1-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


Attachment 5

Public Comments on Renewal and EPA Response to Comments

Public comments made with respect to the renewal of this information
collection are available at:

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=0900006480
79459d&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf"
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=09000064807
9459d&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

and

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=0900006480
787934&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf"
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=09000064807
87934&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Response to Comments Received on the ICR Renewal-Partial Update
of the TSCA Section 8(b) Inventory Database (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0504-0001)

FROM:	Jim Willis, Division Director /s/

Chemical Control Division

TO:	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Angela Hofmann, Director

Regulatory Coordination Staff

DATE:             January 23, 2009

Background

Under TSCA section 8(b) (15 USC 2607), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is required to compile and keep current, via periodic
inquiry, the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). The
TSCA Inventory is a listing of chemical substances manufactured,
imported and processed for commercial purposes in the United States.
Under TSCA section 8(a), the Administrator shall promulgate rules to
provide for the maintenance and collection of records from
manufacturers, importers and processors of commercial chemicals. The
Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule, codified at 40 CFR 710, collects
updated basic chemical manufacturing, processing, and use information
for selected larger volume chemicals in the TCSA Inventory every five
years. Beginning in 1986, EPA collected information through the IUR six
times. The last collection, in 2006, was the first since the IUR was
amended in 2003; the next collection will be in 2011.

Approved under OMB Control No. 2070-0162, the previous ICR (EPA ICR No.
1884.02) covered the information collection activities contained in the
IUR as amended in 2003.

The Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) and American
Petroleum Institute (API) responded to the Federal Register notice (73
FR 51805, September 5, 2008) announcing EPA’s intent to submit the ICR
renewal for TSCA section 8(b) to OMB. A summary of their comments and
EPA’s responses are contained herein.

Public Comments

Jane E. Wishneff

Regulatory Counsel and Director of International Affairs

The Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA)

Information Collection

EPA should clearly state what information is being requested through the
renewal ICR. It would be useful if EPA could clarify what kind of data
it is looking for with regards to production and site reports.

Public Availability

In many cases, any type of production records or site-specific reports
would not be available from a public source.

Electronic Alternatives

The 2006 electronic reporting option was very efficient and is an
appropriate method for reporting in the future. The use of Central Data
Exchange (CDX), the encrypted internet submission process, and the
ability to use a secure electronic signature method was helpful.

Burden Cost Analysis

The estimated burden and cost for compiling an information submission is
severely underestimated at 485 hours. Sometimes data has to be obtained
from different people and locations; additional time is needed to obtain
information that is not readily available; and large companies, that may
be compartmentalized, will need additional time to gather information
for IUR submission.

Howard J. Feldman

Director, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs

American Petroleum Institute (API)

Burden Cost Analysis

API supports EPA’s raising of its burden estimates in comparison with
the previous ICR.

Release of IUR Data

EPA needs to address the data utility, data availability, and
transparency problems during the ICR process. API emphasized that EPA
has not yet publicly released the data collected under the 2006 IUR
reporting period. API is concerned that EPA is able to use 2006 IUR data
to create risk-based prioritization documents even though the data is
not publicly available.

TSCA Inventory Reset

EPA should discuss the TSCA Inventory reset in the current ICR or its
Supporting Statement discussion, since the reset will most likely
involve the use of IUR data. The reset should not be a priority for the
Agency, given the challenges the Agency is already undertaking with the
Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP). Also, an Inventory
reset would require substantial time and resources from the regulated
community.

Response to Comments

EPA would like to thank Ms. Jane E. Wishneff and Mr. Howard J. Feldman
for submitting comments for this ICR. EPA has carefully reviewed the
comments submitted and believes that changes to the ICR narrative are
not warranted for the following reasons.

In the ICR, EPA states the specific data items being requested for the
2011 reporting cycle and explains how the data will be used. EPA
understands that additional time may be needed to obtain information
that is not readily accessible. However, EPA estimates are an average
and any particular respondent may be expected to incur burden above or
below the EPA estimate.  The burden estimates for report preparation and
submission in the ICR are based on best available data at the time of
calculation. CSPA’s comment does not provide specific information for
EPA to consider adjusting its estimates, however, if CSPA would like to
provide additional specific data, EPA would be willing to evaluate and
consider these in future burden estimates.

EPA appreciates the positive comments received on the electronic
reporting process. EPA is now looking at options to ensure electronic
reporting is fully utilized for the next IUR reporting cycle. As noted
in the supporting statement to the ICR, electronic IUR submissions allow
data to be entered into the database more accurately and expeditiously,
resulting in a quick turnaround between the submission of the data to
the Agency and the availability of the data for use. In a large part
because almost half of the IUR reports were submitted in a
non-electronic manner and contained errors, EPA was not able to make a
non-confidential version of the 2006 IUR data publicly available until
December 30, 2008.

With regard to the TSCA Inventory reset, EPA is committed to resetting
the TSCA Inventory, but the concept is still in the early stages of
development.

 PAGE

 PAGE   - 2 -


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46902-46903]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18907]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2014-0070]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated July 18, 2014, BNSF Railway (BNSF) petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain
provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49
CFR Part 232, Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-
Passenger Trains and Equipment; End-of-Train Devices. FRA assigned the
petition Docket Number FRA-2014-0070.
    Specifically, BNSF seeks a temporary waiver of compliance from 49
CFR 232.213(a). The current rule provides that ``a railroad may be
permitted to move a train up to, but not exceeding, 1,500 miles between
brake tests and inspections if the railroad designates a train as an
extended haul train.'' BNSF requests relief to allow it to operate up
to 1,800 miles between inspections.
    BNSF states that it requires this relief to ensure its continued
ability to meet customer expectations for deliveries of coal
(critically low stock piles), grain, and other commodities. Many of
these commodities move in efficient unit train service, which is the
subject of this waiver request. BNSF's operations are continuing to
overcome the challenges originating with harsh winter weather, followed
by frost heaves, saturated roadbeds, and a range of flooding events and
mud boils; and the compounded effect that the prolonged weather
conditions have had on BNSF's entire system and its network fluidity.
These weather conditions, coupled with significant and sustained
increases in volume in the second half of 2013, as well as high levels
of seasonal demand late in 2013, have led to congestion across BNSF's
network and a backlog on deliveries of critical commodities.
Additionally, Amtrak's Empire Builder service across BNSF North lines
experienced negative impacts on its on-time performance due to ongoing
congestion; BNSF recognizes that FRA and general public is focused on
Amtrak performance and continues to work to improve the Empire
Builder's on-time service performance.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE.,
W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is open
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by September 10, 2014 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the

Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 5, 2014.
Ron Hynes,
Director, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-18907 Filed 8-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: May 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 98)]
[Notices]
[Page 28627]
[DOCID:fr21my10-94]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3309-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

North Dakota; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of North Dakota (FEMA-3309-EM), dated March 14, 2010, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: April 30, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective April 30, 2010.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-12191 Filed 5-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: August 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 49928]
[DOCID:fr16au10-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR00-16-001]

Enogex, LLC; Notice of Filing

August 3, 2010.
    Take notice that on July 30, 2010, Enogex, LLC (Enogex) filed
pursuant to section 284.123(e) of the Commission's regulations, a
revised Statement of Operating Conditions (SOC) for Storage service to
supersede the existing Storage SOC in its entirety.
    Enogex states that the new Storage SOC restructures the overall
format, updates certain terms and conditions including provisions for
creditworthiness and billing and includes a Section 311 rate summary.
    Enogex is requesting an effective date of July 30, 2010. Enogex
further states the filing is in anticipation of their uploading a
baseline filing in accordance with Order 714.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing 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). 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. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Wednesday, August 18, 2010.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-20130 Filed 8-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P