[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16549-16552]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07851]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85649; File No. SR-NYSE-2019-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rule 7.31(i)(4) Relating to the Last Sale Peg Modifier

April 15, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on April 2, 2019, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit

comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(i)(4) relating to the Last
Sale Peg Modifier. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(i)(4) relating to the Last
Sale Peg Modifier, also referred to as a ``Last Sale Peg Order.''
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to specify a circumstance when the
working price of a Last Sale Peg Order would not be adjusted.
    Rule 7.31(i)(4) provides that a Last Sale Peg Order is a Non-
Routable Limit Order to buy that will not trade or be displayed at a
price higher than the last-sale price, which is the later of the most
recent last-sale eligible trade \4\ executed on the Exchange or the
most recent consolidated last-sale eligible trade.\5\ Rule
7.31(i)(4)(A) provides that the working price of a Last Sale Peg Order
will be pegged to the lower of the last-sale price, the limit price of
the order, or the PBO. The Last Sale Peg Order is available to buy Non-
Routable Limit Orders only and is designed to assist member
organizations in their compliance with the ``safe harbor'' provisions
of Rule 10b-18 under the Act (``Rule 10b-18'') for issuer
repurchases.\6\ One of the four provisions required to fall under Rule
10b-18's safe harbor is that the purchase price of a security may not
exceed the highest independent bid or the last independent transaction
price for the security.\7\ Because a Last Sale Peg Order will not trade
at a price that is higher than the last-sale price, member
organizations can use this instruction to facilitate their compliance
with at least one of the conditions of the safe harbor provision of
Rule 10b-18.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A last-sale eligible trade must be of at least one round
lot.
    \5\ A consolidated last-sale eligible trade is the last-sale
eligible trade reported to the responsible single plan processor.
    \6\ See 17 CFR 240.10b-18. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 78679 (August 25, 2016), 81 FR 60080 (August 31, 2016)
(SR-NYSE-2016-59).
    \7\ See 17 CFR 240.10b-18(b)(3). The other three conditions
relate to time of purchases, volume of purchases, and a requirement
that only one broker or dealer be involved in such repurchases on a
single day.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85158 (February 15,
2019), 84 FR 5794 (February 22, 2019) (SR-NYSE-2018-52) (``NYSE
Approval Order''). The Exchange does not represent that a Last Sale
Peg Order is guaranteed to meet the requirements of the safe harbor
provision of Rule 10b-18; rather, these instruction are available to
member organizations to facilitate their own compliance with Rule
10b-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 7.31(i)(4)(B) provides that the display price of a Last Sale
Peg Order is the same as the working price, unless the working price is
pegged to the PBO, in which case, the display price is determined under
paragraph (e)(1) of Rule 7.31.\9\ The Exchange proposes to amend Rule
7.31(i)(4)(B) to further specify that the working price of a Last Sale
Peg Order would not be adjusted if the PBO has adjusted to be equal to
or lower than the working price of the Last Sale Order. As a Non-
Routable Limit Order, a Last Sale Peg Order is subject to Rule
7.31(e)(1)(iii), which provides in part that if the PBO of an Away
Market re-prices to be equal to or lower than a Non-Routable Limit
Order's last display price, the order's display price will not change,
but the working price will be adjusted to be equal to its display
price. The Exchange proposes that if the PBO has adjusted in this
manner, the working price of the Last Sale Peg Order would not change
if the last-sale price adjusts to be the same or higher than the
working price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Rule 7.31(e)(1) describes how a Non-Routable Limit Order to
buy that, at the time of entry and after trading with any sell
orders in the Exchange Book priced at or below the PBO is priced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, as amended, Rule 7.31(i)(4)(B) would provide that if
the PBO has adjusted to be equal to or lower than the working price of
the Last Sale Peg Order, the working price of such order would not
change if the last-sale price adjusts to be the same or higher than the
working price. The Exchange believes that this proposed amendment would
simplify the operation of the Last-Sale Peg Order and eliminate the
need for a price change that would not otherwise be required for such
order to facilitate compliance with Rule 10b-18. This proposed
amendment would not change the behavior of a Last-Sale Peg Order if the
last-sale price adjusts lower. In such case, even if the PBO has
adjusted to be equal to or lower than the working price of a Last Sale
Peg Order, if the last-sale price adjusts to be lower than such working
price, the working price of the Last Sale Peg Order would be adjusted.
    For example, if the Away Market PBO is $10.02 and the last-sale
price is $10.00, a Last Sale Peg Order to buy 1,000 shares with a limit
price of $10.05 will be assigned a working and display price of $10.00,
which is the same as the last-sale price. If the Away Market PBO
updates to $9.95, which is lower than the Last Sale Peg Order's working
price, pursuant to Rule 7.31(e)(1)(iii), the Last Sale Peg Order would
remain at $10.00. If, while the PBO is $9.95, there is an update of the
last-sale price to $10.02, with this proposed rule change, the Last
Sale Peg Order would remain at $10.00 and not be adjusted. By contrast,
if, while the PBO is $9.95, there is an update of the last-sale price
to $9.99, the working price of the Last Sale Peg Order would be
adjusted to $9.95, with a display price of $9.94.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 7.31(e)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has not yet implemented Last Sale Peg Orders, which
were recently approved.\11\ The Exchange proposes that, subject to
effectiveness of this proposed rule change, to implement this proposed
rule change at the same time that it introduces Last Sale Peg Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See NYSE Approval Order, supra note 8. The Exchange has
announced that it will implement Last Sale Peg Orders on April 29,
2019. See Trader Update dated February 21, 2019, available here:
https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/Pillar_Update_NYSE_Tape_A_NGW_February_2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\13\ in particular, because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market

and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest. The Exchange believes that the proposal would
remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest because it would specify in the
Exchange's rules circumstances when a Last Sale Peg Order would not be
re-priced. The proposed rule change would further remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system because it would simplify operations by reducing the
number of times a Last Sale Peg Order would be required to re-price
while at the same time maintaining the order type's core functionality
to facilitate compliance with Rule 10b-18. Because a Last Sale Peg
Order will continue to not trade at a price that is higher than the
last sale, member organizations can continue use Last Sale Peg Orders
to facilitate their compliance with at least one of the conditions of
the safe harbor provision of Rule 10b-18.\14\ Lastly, the Last Sale Peg
Order was recently approved by the Commission \15\ and this proposal
does not seek to amend its operation in any significant manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \14\ See supra note 6.
    \15\ See NYSE Approval Order, supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not designed to have a competitive impact because it is intended to
simplify operations by reducing the number of times a Last Sale Peg
Order would be required to reprice, while maintaining the core
functionality of such order to facilitate compliance with Rule 10b-18.
Nonetheless, the proposed rule change should promote competition by
enhancing the Exchange's rules to provide greater specificity to market
participants and improving the efficiency of the Exchange's order
handling processes.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\17\
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \18\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \20\ permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The NYSE asked the Commission to
waive the 30-day operative delay so that the Exchange. Specifically the
Exchange noted that Last Sale Peg Orders were approved by the
Commission on February 15, 2019,\21\ and intends to implement the
orders on April 29, 2019.\22\ The Exchange represents that this
proposed rule change does not seek to amend the operation of the Last
Sale Peg Order in any significant manner and that the proposed rule
change maintains the core functionality of this order type to
facilitate issuer compliance with Exchange Act Rule 10b-18. The
Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest, and
accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay
and designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \21\ See NYSE Approval Order, supra note 8.
    \22\ See supra note 11.
    \23\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2019-16 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2019-16. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should

submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2019-16 and should be
submitted on or before May 10, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-07851 Filed 4-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule is complex and I have a strong personal interest in understanding it and its implications. I was a lifelong smoker who knows that e-cigarettes have provided significant benefits to me and my family. I want to share my personal story, as well as respond to the questions raised under the Proposed Rule. The time I have available for research is limited, and I do not believe the 75 day comment period will be sufficient for me to provide a studied response.

I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 433-434]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28550]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC22-13-000.
    Applicants: Howard Wind LLC.
    Description: Supplement to November 3, 2021 Application for
Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of Howard Wind
LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/28/21.
    Accession Number: 20211228-5244.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/7/22.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2488-022.
    Applicants: Oasis Power Partners, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Oasis Power
Partners, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/28/21.
    Accession Number: 20211228-5148.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/18/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2013-013; ER19-2250-005.
    Applicants: TrailStone Energy Marketing, LLC, Talen Energy
Marketing, LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for Southwest Region
of Talen Energy Marketing, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/29/21.
    Accession Number: 20211229-5173.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1370-007; ER16-581-008; ER16-582-008; ER16-
2271-007; ER19-828-003; ER20-539-003; ER20-1338-002; ER20-2505-001;
ER21-1254-002; ER21-2204-001; ER21-2279-001.
    Applicants: Iron Star Wind Project, LLC, ENGIE Power & Gas LLC,
Genbright LLC, Triple H Wind Project, LLC, King Plains Wind Project,
LLC, East Fork Wind Project, LLC, Solomon Forks Wind Project, LLC,
ENGIE Resources LLC, ENGIE Retail, LLC, ENGIE Portfolio Management,
LLC, ENGIE Energy Marketing NA, Inc.
    Description: Triennial Compliance Filing--Southwest Power Pool
Region of the ENGIE Southwest Power Pool MBR Sellers.
    Filed Date: 12/28/21.
    Accession Number: 20211228-5158.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1369-001; ER21-1371-001; ER21-1373-002; ER21-
1376-002.
    Applicants: Sanborn Solar 1A, LLC, Edwards Solar 1A, LLC, Edwards
Sanborn Storage II, LLC, Edwards Sanborn Storage I, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Edwards
Sanborn Storage I, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/28/21.
    Accession Number: 20211228-5229.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/18/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-736-000.
    Applicants: System Energy Resources, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SERI Depreciation Filing to
be effective 3/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 12/28/21.
    Accession Number: 20211228-5140.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/25/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-737-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: American Transmission
Systems, Incorporated submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: ATSI
Submits Revised IA No. 3993 to be effective 2/28/2022.
    Filed Date: 12/29/21.
    Accession Number: 20211229-5006.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-738-000.
    Applicants: Jersey Central Power & Light Company, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Jersey Central Power & Light
Company submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: JCPL Submits IA No.
5944 to be effective 2/28/2022.
    Filed Date: 12/29/21.
    Accession Number: 20211229-5007.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-739-000.
    Applicants: Jersey Central Power & Light Company, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Jersey Central Power & Light
Company submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: JCPL Submits IA No.
5945 to be effective 2/28/2022.
    Filed Date: 12/29/21.
    Accession Number: 20211229-5009.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-741-000.
    Applicants: Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., New York
Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Orange and Rockland
Utilities, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Joint
Section 205 filing of TPIA among NYISO, O&R and Transco SA No. 2663 to
be effective 12/15/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/29/21.
    Accession Number: 20211229-5063.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-742-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Alligator Creek Solar LGIA
Filing to be effective 12/14/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/29/21.
    Accession Number: 20211229-5089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-743-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Mitchell County Solar LGIA
Termination Filing to be effective 12/29/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/29/21.
    Accession Number: 20211229-5090.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-744-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement No. 902 to
be effective 12/22/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/29/21.
    Accession Number: 20211229-5128.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/22.

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

    Docket Numbers: PH22-4-000.
    Applicants: Ullico Inc.
    Description: Ullico Inc. submits FERC 65-A Exemption Notification.
    Filed Date: 12/29/21.
    Accession Number: 20211229-5172.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/22.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

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

    Dated: December 29, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-28550 Filed 1-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47125-47130]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19397]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0070; FRL-9998-57]

C10-C16 Alkylbenzene Sulfonates; Exemption From the Requirement
of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of C10-C16 branched
and linear alkylbenzene sulfonates, including benzenesulfonic acid,
dodecyl (CAS Reg, No. 27176-87-0) and benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl-,
sodium salt (CAS Reg. No. 25155-30-0), when used as an active or inert
ingredient in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to food-
contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment,
and food-processing equipment and utensils at a maximum concentration
not to exceed 700 parts per million (ppm). Exponent, Inc., on behalf of
Ecolab, Inc., submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance.

DATES: This regulation is effective September 9, 2019. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 8, 2019
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0070, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita Pease, Antimicrobials Division
(7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural
workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
     Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers
and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers;
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g.,
agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse,
nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users.

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0070 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
August 4, 2019. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0070, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Exemption

    In the Federal Register of April 11, 2018 (83 FR 15528) (FRL-9975-
57), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance
petition (PP 7F8626) by Exponent, Inc., 1150 Connecticut Avenue NW,
Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20036 on behalf of Ecolab, Inc., 1 Ecolab
Place, St. Paul, MN 55102. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.940(a) be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of C10-C16 branched
and linear alkylbenzene sulfonates when used as an active ingredient in
antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to food-contact surfaces
in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-
processing equipment, and utensils at a maximum end use concentration
not to exceed 700 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by Exponent, Inc., on behalf of Ecolab, Inc., the
registrant/petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were submitted to the docket in response
to the notice of filing, one of which was relevant to this rulemaking.
The Agency's response is located in Unit IV.B. below.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . .
. .''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for C10-C16
alkylbenzene sulfonates including exposure resulting from the exemption
established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks
associated with C10-C16 alkylbenzene sulfonates
follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Alkylbenzene sulfonates (ABS) are compounds that consist of a
sulfonated aromatic ring with an alkyl chain of varying lengths;
C10-C16 refers to the number of carbons in the
alkyl chain. These compounds may exist in either branched or linear
form, depending upon where the aromatic ring is attached to the chain
of carbons; the linear form is more common. The most common linear
alkylbenzene sulfonate compounds used in pesticide formulations are (1)
benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl (CAS Reg. No. 27176-87-0) and (2)
benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl-, sodium salt (CAS Reg. No. 25155-30-0),
both of which are currently approved for use as active and inert
ingredients in registered pesticide products. Due to the similarity of
production methods, product mixtures, and commercial use sites, as well
as the similar or identical physical, chemical, and toxicological
properties of ABS compounds, EPA's dietary risk assessment covers all
registered ABS compounds, including both branched and linear forms and
those compounds of chain lengths C10-C16; the
toxicity data indicate that the toxicological profile is the same for
the branched and linear form and that the length of the carbon alkyl
chain does not change the toxicity of the ABS compound.
    There are several repeat-dose oral toxicity studies performed with
linear alkybenzene sulfonates, ranging from a 28-day study in monkeys
to 9-month studies conducted with rats and mice. There are also repeat-
dose dermal (guinea pigs, rabbits, and rats) and inhalation studies
(dogs and monkeys). Collectively, these animal data suggest that the
liver, kidney, and caecum (for oral studies) are the major target
organs for toxicity. The liver and kidney effects were dose- and
duration-related in that mild effects (organ weight changes and serum
enzyme/clinical chemistry changes indicative of mild organ effects)
were seen at lower doses but increased in severity with both dose and
time.
    Several developmental toxicity studies via the oral and dermal
routes have been performed with ABS in rats, mice and rabbits; there
were also several subcutaneous injection developmental studies reported
in mice. Some developmental effects (including some terata) were
observed at high doses at which maternal toxicity was also observed;
however, the available information does not suggest any qualitative or
quantitative susceptibility differences between pups and pregnant
animals. In reproduction toxicity tests, no reproductive toxicity was
observed at doses up to and including 250 mg/kg/day.
    Although data are limited, there is no evidence for carcinogenicity
of ABS. ABS is also negative in results of mutagenicity testing.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by ABS as well as the no-observed-adverse-
effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level
(LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document ``Draft Risk Assessment for
Alkylbenzene Sulfonates (ABS) to Support Registration Review, and
Petition for a Tolerance Exemption'' in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2018-0070.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the dose in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe

exposure level--generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose
(PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe margin of exposure (MOE).
For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure
will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in
terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect in a
lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in
risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment
process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm. A
summary of the toxicological endpoints for ABS used for human risk
assessment is shown in Table 1. The NOAEL of 50 mg/kg/day was chosen
based on the result of multiple animal studies including the three co-
critical studies listed in Table 1.

  Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints and Points of Departure for ABS for Use in Human Health
                                                 Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Dose used in risk     Special FQPA SF,
        Exposure scenario             assessment, UF          target MOE        Study and toxicological effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (All populations)
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     No endpoint was selected. No effects are attributable to a single dose in
                                                                   animal studies.
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)
Systemic/Reproductive Oral NOAEL   UF = 100x...........  FQPA SF = 1x.......  6-month Oral Toxicity--Rat.
 = 50 mg/kg/day.
                                   Chronic RfD = 0.5 mg/ cPAD = cRfD/FQPA SF  NOAEL = 40 mg/kg/day (0.07%) and.
                                    kg/day.               = 0.5 mg/kg/day.
                                                                              LOAEL = 114 mg/kg/day (0.2%) based
                                                                               on increased caecum weight and
                                                                               slight kidney damage in a 6-month
                                                                               rat dietary study (Yoneyama et
                                                                               al. 1972 Ann. Rep. Tokyo Metrop.
                                                                               Res. Lab. Public Health 24:409-
                                                                               440).
                                                                              Developmental Toxicity--Rat
                                                                               Systemic/Reproductive.
                                                                              NOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day and LOAEL =
                                                                               250 mg/kg/day based on decreased
                                                                               Day 21 female pup body weight
                                                                               (MRID 43498416-Bueler, E. et al.
                                                                               1971. Tox Appl. Pharmacol. 18:83-
                                                                               91).
                                                                              9-month Drinking Water Study.
                                                                              NOAEL = 85 mg/kg/day and LOAEL =
                                                                               145 mg/kg/day from 9 month
                                                                               drinking water rat study based on
                                                                               decreased body weight gain, and
                                                                               serum/biochemical and enzymatic
                                                                               changes in the liver and kidney.
                                                                               (Yoneyama et al. 1976 Ann. Rep.
                                                                               Tokyo Metrop. Res. Lab. Public
                                                                               Health 27(2): 105-112).
Short-Term Incidental Oral (1-30   Oral NOAEL = 50 mg/   Residential LOC for  6-month Oral Toxicity--Rat.
 days).                             kg/day.               MOE = 100.          NOAEL = 40 mg/kg/day (0.07%) and
                                                                              LOAEL = 114 mg/kg/day (0.2%) based
                                                                               on increased caecum weight and
                                                                               slight kidney damage in a 6-month
                                                                               rat dietary study (Yoneyama et
                                                                               al. 1972 Ann. Rep. Tokyo Metrop.
                                                                               Res. Lab. Public Health 24:409-
                                                                               440).
Short-, Intermediate and Long-     UF = 100x             Residential LOC for
 Term Inhalation (1 to 30 days, 1-                        MOE = 100.
 6 months, >6 months).
                                                         Occupational LOC     Developmental Toxicity--Rat
                                                          for MOE = 100.       Systemic/Reproductive.
                                                                              NOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day and LOAEL =
                                                                               250 mg/kg/day based on decreased
                                                                               Day 21 female pup body weight
                                                                               (Buehler, E. et al. 1971. Tox
                                                                               Appl. Pharmacol. 18:83-91).
                                                                              9-month Drinking Water Study.
                                                                              NOAEL = 85 mg/kg/day and LOAEL =
                                                                               145 mg/kg/day from 9 month
                                                                               drinking water rat study based on
                                                                               decreased body weight gain, and
                                                                               serum/biochemical and enzymatic
                                                                               changes in the liver and kidney.
                                                                               (Yoneyama et al. 1976 Ann. Rep.
                                                                               Tokyo Metrop. Res. Lab. Public
                                                                               Health 27(2): 105-112).
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dermal...........................                          No dermal endpoint identified.
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation)    No evidence of carcinogenicity in reported published literature studies in
                                                                        rats
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. UF = Uncertainty Factor (comprised of 10x for extrapolation
  from animal to human (interspecies) and 10x for potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human
  population (intraspecies). cRfD = Chronic Reference Dose.
cPAD = Chronic Population Adjusted Dose. NOAEL = No Observable Adverse Effect Level.
LOAEL = Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level. MOE = Margin of Exposure. LOC = Level of Concern.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to ABS, EPA considered all dietary exposure from registered
pesticide uses as well as the petitioned-for exemption. Exposure of
food to products containing ABS compounds may occur from various
registered product use sites including: (1) Indirect food contact from
residential food preparation areas, (2) indirect food contact from
commercial food preparation areas such as public eating places, dairy-
processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils
(residues in or on food permitted by 40 CFR 180.940(a)), (3) direct
food uses as fruit and vegetable washes (residues in or on food
permitted by 21 CFR 173.315 and 173.405), and (4) inert ingredients
used in pesticide formulations as a surfactant, emulsifier, or related
adjuvants of surfactants in products applied to growing agricultural
crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest (residues in or on
food permitted by 40 CFR 180.910) and to animals (residues in or on
food permitted by 40 CFR 180.930). EPA assessed dietary exposures from
ABS in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. An acute dietary risk assessment for ABS has not
been conducted because no adverse effects could be attributed to a
single administered oral dose.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In developing the chronic dietary risk
assessment, EPA considered estimates from four models used to evaluate
risk from the various pathways of exposure to residues of ABS: the
Commercial Tier 1A model for dietary exposure from use of ABS in
commercial settings, including the proposed use of ABS at a limit of
700 ppm; the Indirect Dietary Residential Exposure Assessment Model
(IDREAM) for dietary exposures from residential uses; Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model (DEEM) for direct applications to food via fruit and
vegetables washes; and the inert Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model
(iDEEM) to account for the inert uses of branched and linear
alkylbenzene sulfonates in agricultural formulations. Each model run of
these exposure scenarios resulted in risk levels below the Agency's
levels of concern. For purposes of the chronic dietary assessment, the
Agency considered the likelihood of co-occurrence of exposures from
these various use patterns. EPA determined that it was appropriate to
aggregate exposure from use of ABS in commercial food preparation areas
and as an inert in pesticide formulations applied to raw agricultural
commodities or animals due to potential co-occurrence. The Agency
concluded that it was unlikely that an individual food commodity would
come into contact with and retain residues from both residential and
commercial areas and thus, utilized the exposures from use in
commercial settings, which were higher than residues from residential
settings. In addition, EPA concluded that residues from fruit and
vegetable washes were likely to be washed away and should not be
included in the co-occurrence dietary assessment. Finally, the Agency
included exposures from inert uses of ABS in the dietary assessment
based on the likelihood that crops treated with pesticide formulations
containing ABS as an inert may not be washed prior to picking up
residues from use of ABS in commercial food preparation places.
    For more specific information on the dietary exposure assessment
for ABS can be found in the document ``Draft Risk Assessment for
Alkylbenzene Sulfonates (ABS) to Support Registration Review and
Petition for a Tolerance Exemption,'' available in docket ID number
EPA-HQ-2018-0070 at http://www.regulations.gov.
    iii. Cancer. No evidence of carcinogenicity is reported published
literature studies in rats. Therefore, a cancer dietary exposure
assessment was not performed.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. Exposure to ABS compounds
in drinking water may occur from use in registered pesticide
formulations containing ABS as inert ingredient. A conservative
drinking water concentration value of 100 ppb based on screening-level
modeling was used to assess the contribution to drinking water for the
chronic dietary risk assessments for ABS compounds. This was directly
entered into the dietary exposure model.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).
Residential (non-dietary) exposure may occur as follows:
     Residential handlers: There is a potential for short-term
and intermediate-term residential handler inhalation exposure from use
of products containing ABS compounds as sanitizers in or on food-
contact surfaces and as turf and garden products.
     Post-application exposures: There is a potential for post-
application exposures from products containing ABS compounds used on
indoor surfaces, carpets, food-contact surfaces, lawns and turf, and
materials preservatives. The durations and routes of exposure that were
evaluated include short-term inhalation exposure and short-term
incidental oral exposure to children.
     Co-occurring exposures: For purposes of the aggregate risk
assessment, EPA aggregated residential handler inhalation exposure from
mopping and trigger-pump spray applications and used hand-to-mouth
exposure from the turf use for post-application exposures to children,
as it was the highest exposure use pattern.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found ABS to share a common mechanism of toxicity with
any other substances, and ABS does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that ABS does not have a
common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information
regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such
chemical, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional (10X) tenfold margin of safety for infants and children
in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X
when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or,
if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional FQPA SF
value based on the use of traditional uncertainty factors (UFs) and/or
FQPA SFs, as appropriate.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no evidence of
increased

sensitivity to infants and children due to pre- and post-natal exposure
to ABS. The data submitted to the Agency, as well as those from
published literature, demonstrate no increased susceptibility in rats,
rabbits, or mice to in utero and/or early postnatal exposure to ABS. In
the prenatal developmental toxicity studies in rats, rabbits, and mice
and in the 2-generations reproduction study in rats, developmental
effects in the fetuses or neonates occurred at or above doses that
caused maternal or parental toxicity.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that it
would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA SF to 1x.
That decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for ABS is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that ABS is a neurotoxic chemical and
there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional
UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. Although there is evidence of developmental toxicity in some
studies, there is no evidence of increased susceptibility. Moreover,
the NOAELs and LOAELs are well-defined, and the endpoints selected for
regulatory purposes are protective of those effects.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The screening-level dietary assessment and the residential
exposure assessment are conservative and not likely to underestimate
exposures.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
ABS is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for co-occurring dietary chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that
chronic exposure to ABS from food and water will be 23% of the cPAD for
the highest exposed subpopulation (children 1 to 2) and 8.8% of the
cPAD for adults. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
ABS is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate risks were assessed for
children and adults that could be exposed to ABS and concluded that the
combined food, water and residential non-dietary exposures result in
aggregate short term MOEs of 670 at 5% inert and 250 at 25% inert for
adults, and 310 for children (1 to 2 years old). EPA's level of concern
for ABS is an MOE of 100 or below; therefore, ABS is not expected to
pose a short-term risk.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. An intermediate-term (1 to 6 months)
aggregate assessment was performed for adults that could be exposed to
ABS. Since possible intermediate term inhalation exposures are similar
to the short-term and the PODs are the same, the aggregate intermediate
term MOEs are 670 at 5% inert and 250 at 25% inert which exceed the
target MOE of 100.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on a lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity for ABS in the database, ABS is not
expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on its risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm that will
result to the general population, or to infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to ABS residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method for food is not needed. Food contact
sanitizers are typically regulated by the State health departments to
ensure that the food industry is using products in compliance with the
regulations in 40 CFR 180.940. The end-use solution that is applied to
the food contact surface is analyzed; the food items that may come into
contact with treated surface are not analyzed. An analytical method is
available to analyze the use dilution that is applied to food contact
surfaces. Alkylbenzene sulfonates are a class of anionic surfactants.
An ``Anionic Content by Surfactant Electrode Method'' is used to
determine the concentration or percent of anionic surfactant in the use
solution. The method may be requested from Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Road, Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone no:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. Response to Comments

    EPA received a comment expressing concern for the use of pesticides
on food that will end up in water. No supporting information was
provided; therefore, it is unclear whether the issue raised is related
to the safety of consumers of food containing residues of ABS or to the
environmental effects of pesticides in water. Nonetheless, EPA notes
that section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
authorizes EPA to set tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals
when it determines that the tolerance meets the safety standard imposed
by that statute. After considering the available data, including the
potential for ABS residues to end up in drinking water, EPA has made
that determination for the ABS tolerances established by this final
rule.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established under 40 CFR 180.940(a) for residues of alkylbenzene
sulfonates in branched and linear form of chain lengths C10-
C16, when used as an inert or an active ingredient in
antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to food-contact surfaces
in public-eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-
processing equipment and utensils at a maximum end-use concentration
not to exceed 700 ppm. As written, this exemption covers all ABS
compounds of branched or linear form with the appropriate chain length;
however, the Agency is expressly clarifying that this exemption also
includes the two substances that are already registered and for which
tolerance exemptions have already been established--benzenesulfonic
acid, dodecyl and benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl-, sodium salt. As this
new exemption supersedes the more limited exemptions already
established for those two substances, EPA is removing those exemptions
from Sec.  180.940(b) and (c) as no longer necessary.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition
submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review
under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a regulatory action under
Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs'' (82

FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: August 29, 2019.
Anita Pease,
Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.940:
0
a. Add alphabetically to the table in paragraph (a) the entry
``Alkylbenzene sulfonates (branched and linear) of chain lengths C10-
C16, including benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl and benzenesulfonic acid,
dodecyl-, sodium salt''.
0
b. Remove from the table in paragraph (b) the entry for
``Benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl-''.
0
c. Remove from the table in paragraph (c) the entries for
``Benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl-'' and ``Benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl-
, sodium salt''.
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  180.940  Tolerance exemptions for active and inert ingredients
for use in antimicrobial formulations (Food-contact surface sanitizing
solutions).

* * * * *
    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Pesticide chemical           CAS Reg. No.          Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Alkylbenzene sulfonates (branched       27176-87-0  When ready for use,
 and linear) of chain lengths C10-      25155-30-0   the end-use
 C16, including benzenesulfonic                      concentration is
 acid, dodecyl and benzenesulfonic                   not to exceed 700
 acid, dodecyl-, sodium salt.                        ppm.

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

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2019-19397 Filed 9-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 20379]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8021]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL01-10-000, et al.]

Puget Sound Energy, Inc., v. All Jurisdictional Sellers of Energy
and/or Capacity at Wholesale Into Electric Energy and/or Capacity,
Markets in the Pacific Northwest, Including Parties to the Western
Systems Power Pool Agreement; Notice of Designation of Certain
Commission Personnel as Non-Decisional

    Commission staff member Aaron Siskind, of the Office of Energy
Market Regulation, was previously assigned to settlement and litigation
proceedings in the above-referenced dockets when he worked for the
Office of Administrative Litigation.
    As non-decisional staff, Mr. Siskind will not participate in an
advisory capacity in the Commission's review of any future filings in
the above-referenced dockets, including offers of settlement or
settlement agreements.
    Mr. Siskind will not be assigned as advisory staff to review and
process subsequent filings that are made in the above-referenced
dockets, including any offer of settlement or settlement agreement.
Non-decisional staff and advisory staff are prohibited from subsequent
communications with one another concerning matters in the above-
referenced dockets.

    Dated: March 28, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8021 Filed 4-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50827-50829]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17947]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-1652]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Dispute Resolution Procedures for Science-Based
Decisions on Products by the Center for Veterinary Medicine

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on the information collection provisions of
the dispute resolution procedures for science-based decisions on
products regulated by the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM).

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by October 19, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before October 19, 2020. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of October 19, 2020. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery
service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the

public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the
manner detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and
``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2020-N-1652 for ``Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Dispute Resolution Procedures for
Science-Based Decisions on Products by the Center for Veterinary
Medicine.'' Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see
ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those
submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of
Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-
12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Dispute Resolution Procedures for Science-Based Decisions on Products
by the Center for Veterinary Medicine--21 CFR 10.75

OMB Control Number 0910-0566--Extension

    CVM's Guidance for Industry (GFI) #79, ``Dispute Resolution
Procedures for Science-Based Decisions on Products Regulated by the
Center for Veterinary Medicine'' https://www.fda.gov/media/70279/download, describes the process by which CVM formally resolves disputes
relating to scientific controversies. A scientific controversy involves
issues concerning a specific product regulated by CVM related to
matters of technical expertise and requires specialized education,
training, or experience to be understood and resolved. The guidance
details information on how CVM intends to apply provisions of existing
regulations regarding internal review of Agency decisions. In addition,
the guidance outlines the established procedures for persons who are
sponsors, applicants, or manufacturers of animal drugs or other
products regulated by CVM who wish to submit a request for review of a
scientific dispute. When a sponsor, applicant, or manufacturer has a
scientific disagreement with a written decision by CVM, they may submit
a request for a review of that decision by following the established
procedures discussed in the guidance.
    CVM encourages applicants to begin the resolution of science-based
disputes with discussions with the review team/group, including the
Team Leader or Division Director. The Center prefers that differences
of opinion regarding science or science-based policy be resolved
between the review team/group and the applicant. If the matter is not
resolved by this preferred method, then CVM recommends that the
applicant follow the procedures found in GFI #79.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                            21 CFR Part                                 Number of      responses per     Total annual    Average burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses       per response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.75, Request for review of a scientific dispute..................               1                5                5               10               50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Based on a review of the information collection since our last
request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden
estimate.

    Dated: August 12, 2020.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-17947 Filed 8-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 221 (Monday, November 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68430-68431]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27099]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC15-23-000.
    Applicants: Sunshine Gas Producers, LLC, Innovative Energy Systems,
LLC, Seneca Energy II, LLC, Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Partners,
L.P., Selkirk Cogen Partners, L.P., Kleen Energy Systems, LLC,
Berkshire Power Company, LLC, Chambers Cogeneration, Limited
Partnership, Edgecombe Genco, LLC, Logan Generating Company, LP,
Northampton Generating Company, L.P., RC Cape May Holdings, LLC,
Scrubgrass Generating Company, L.P., Spruance Genco, LLC, Newark Energy
Center, LLC, EIF Newark, LLC, Plum Point Energy Associates, LLC, Plum
Point Services Company, LLC, Panoche Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Application Under FPA Section 203 of the Federal Power
Act of the EIF Applicants.
    Filed Date: 11/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20141105-5250.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/14.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-24-000.
    Applicants: Mammoth Plains Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Action of Mammoth Plains
Wind Project, LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20141105-5254.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/14.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2928-001.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): OATT Administrative
Changes--Schedules 4 and 10 to be effective 11/23/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/6/14.
    Accession Number: 20141106-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/28/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2956-001.
    Applicants: Hoopeston Wind, LLC.
    Description: Second Supplement to September 26, 2014 and October
22, 2014 Hoopeston Wind, LLC tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 11/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20141105-5257.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-230-000.
    Applicants: GP Renewables & Trading, LLC.

    Description: Second supplement to October 29, 2014 GP Renewables &
Trading, LLC tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 11/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20141105-5253.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-349-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): IFA
with City of Victorville for St. Mary's Medical Center WDAT Load
Project to be effective 1/6/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/6/14.
    Accession Number: 20141106-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/28/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-350-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 1883R3
Westar Energy, Inc. NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/6/14.
    Accession Number: 20141106-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/28/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-351-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Notice of Cancellation of
Communications Replacement Agreement with PacifiCorp to be effective 1/
28/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/6/14.
    Accession Number: 20141106-5048.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/28/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-352-000.
    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Rate
Schedule No. 21 with City of Lakeland--Amendment to Exhibit A to be
effective 11/7/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/6/14.
    Accession Number: 20141106-5052.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/28/14.

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

    Dated: November 6, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27099 Filed 11-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45938-45939]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21045]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Submission Deadline for Schedule Information for
Chicago O'Hare International Airport, John F. Kennedy International
Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, Newark Liberty
International Airport, and San Francisco International Airport for the
Summer 2018 Scheduling Season

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

ACTION: Notice of submission deadline.

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

SUMMARY: Under this notice, the FAA announces the submission deadline
of October 5, 2017, for summer 2018 flight schedules at Chicago O'Hare
International Airport (ORD), John F. Kennedy International Airport
(JFK), Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Newark Liberty
International Airport (EWR), and San Francisco International Airport
(SFO), in accordance with the International Air Transport Association
(IATA) Worldwide Slot Guidelines (WSG). The deadline coincides with the
schedule submission deadline for the IATA Slot Conference for the
summer 2018 scheduling season.

DATES: Schedules must be submitted no later than October 5, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Schedules may be submitted by mail to the Slot
Administration Office, AGC-200, Office of the Chief Counsel, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Planty, System Operations
Services, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration,
600 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone

number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has designated EWR, LAX, ORD, and
SFO as IATA Level 2 airports and JFK as an IATA Level 3 airport under
the WSG. The FAA currently limits scheduled operations at JFK by Order
until October 27, 2018.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Operating Limitations at John F. Kennedy International
Airport, 73 FR 3510 (Jan. 18, 2008) as amended 81 FR 32636 (May 24,
2016) and 81 FR 40167 (June 21, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA is primarily concerned about scheduled and other regularly
conducted commercial operations during peak hours, but carriers may
submit schedule plans for the entire day. At ORD, the peak hours are
0700 to 2100 Central Time (1200 to 0200 UTC), at LAX and SFO from 0600
to 2300 Pacific Time (1300 to 0600 UTC), and at EWR and JFK from 0600
to 2300 Eastern Time (1000 to 0300 UTC). Carriers should submit
schedule information in sufficient detail including, at minimum, the
marketing or operating carrier, flight number, scheduled time of
operation, frequency, aircraft equipment, and effective dates. IATA
standard schedule information format and data elements (Standard
Schedules Information Manual or SSIM, Chapter 6) may be used. The WSG
provides additional information on schedule submissions and schedule
updates at Level 2 and Level 3 airports.
    The U.S. summer scheduling season is from March 25 through October
27, 2018, in recognition of the IATA northern summer period. The FAA
understands there may be differences in schedule times due to different
U.S. daylight saving time dates and will accommodate these differences
to the extent possible.
    The FAA generally uses average hourly runway capacity throughput
for the schedule review at Level 2 airports, considering any
differences associated with runway construction or other relevant
operational and performance factors. The FAA will continue that
practice to review the summer 2018 proposed schedules.
    Airlines planning operations at LAX should be advised the airport
plans construction on Runway 7L/25R and is expected to close the runway
from mid-January to mid-May 2018. Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA),
the airport operator, is currently finalizing construction plans. The
FAA is reviewing the anticipated capacity impacts of the construction
along with recent operational performance and demand trends. This
includes surface congestion issues that are increasing operational
complexity and impacting air traffic control as it manages surface
movements. The FAA expects continuing discussions with LAWA, airlines,
and other stakeholders on ways to reduce congestion and delay and
manage operations more efficiently. LAWA conducts monthly meetings on
construction and other operational issues that include local FAA air
traffic control facilities, airlines, and other stakeholders. Such
meetings may be the best regular source of construction project updates
and the anticipated impacts.
    In 2016, the FAA found it could not justify continued Level 3 slot
controls at EWR as the operations were consistently below the allocated
limits and the airport was underutilized. The FAA changed EWR from
Level 3 to Level 2 effective with the winter 2016 scheduling season.
The FAA anticipated as a result of the Level 2 decision, an increase in
flights which could provide competitive and economic benefits. The FAA
also anticipated that with the increase in flights, delays would
increase above 2016 levels but would remain within the levels accepted
when the FAA established Level 3 in summer 2008. In reviewing schedules
for summer 2018, as well as any new requests for winter 2017, the FAA
will consider the recent operational performance metrics including the
average hourly runway throughput trends.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The FAA typically determines an airport's average adjusted
runway capacity or throughput for Level 2 and Level 3 airports by
reviewing hourly data on the arrival and departure rates that air
traffic control indicates could be accepted for that hour. We also
review the actual number of arrivals and departures that operated in
the same hour. The higher of the two numbers, ``called'' or actual,
are used for these purposes. Some dates may be excluded from
analysis such as during periods when extended airport closures or
construction impacts capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the average adjusted airport runway capacity
indicates an average of 79 hourly operations, which is below the limit
in the FAA 2008 Order, and below the levels currently scheduled in some
hours. For the winter 2016 season, the FAA goal was up to 79 movements
in an hour with some reduced levels in adjacent hours to provide
recovery periods. This was meant to allow a transition from Level 3 to
the first scheduling season as Level 2. For the summer 2018 season, the
performance data suggest a similar approach may improve performance.
The FAA has determined a scheduling limit of up to 79 flights an hour
is appropriate. The FAA will accept flights above that limit provided
they were typically operated by the same airline for the summer 2017
season. At the same time, the FAA plans to work with airlines to retime
some flights to less congested periods and have some hours to provide
recovery periods. The mix of arrivals and departures, offsets for hours
that may be above the limits, and the distribution of flights within an
hour or adjacent hours will be considered. Beyond baseline flights, the
FAA does not intend to approve new flights unless they can be
accommodated within the limit. Based on demand for the summer 2017
scheduling season, the FAA anticipates the 1100 to 1259 and 1800 to
0059 UTC hours will be the peak periods without available capacity for
new flights. Consistent with the WSG, carriers should be prepared to
adjust schedules to meet available capacity in order to minimize
potential congestion and delay.
    The Level 2 airports also have a separate schedule facilitation
process managed by the airport operator or a designated representative
for certain types of flights, such as international passenger flights,
or at particular terminals or gates. Those processes with the
individual airports or terminals will continue separately from, and in
addition to, the FAA review of schedules based on runway capacity.
Airlines should submit schedule information directly to the airport
operator representatives in accordance with the local procedures. The
FAA may consider the need to harmonize terminal and runway availability
in the schedule review process.

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 21, 2017.
Michael C. Artist,
Vice President, System Operations Services.
[FR Doc. 2017-21045 Filed 9-27-17; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P