[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3512-3518]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01183]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0829; FRL-9904-19]

Acetochlor; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
acetochlor in or on sugar beets and peanuts. Monsanto Company requested
these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective January 22, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before March 24, 2014, 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-2012-0829, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<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: Lois Rossi, Registration Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 305-7090; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's 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-2012-0829 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
March 24, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0829, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of January 16, 2013 (78 FR 3377) (FRL-9375-
4), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
2F8077) by Monsanto Company, 1300 I Street NW., Suite 450 East,
Washington DC 20005. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.470 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide,
acetochlor, (2-chloro-2'-methyl-6'-ethyl-N-ethoxymethylacetanilide),
and its metabolites containing either the 2-ethyl-6-methylaniline (EMA)
or the 2-(1-hydroxyethyl)-6-methyl-aniline (HEMA) moiety, to be
expressed as acetochlor equivalents, resulting from applications to
soil or growing crops, in or on the following agricultural commodities:
Beet, sugar, dried pulp at 0.5 parts per million (ppm); beet, sugar,
molasses at 1.3 ppm; beet, sugar, roots at 0.3 ppm; beet, sugar, tops
at 0.8 ppm; peanut at 0.2 ppm; peanut, hay at 6.0 ppm; and peanut, meal
at 0.5 ppm. The petition also requested that EPA delete from 40 CFR
180.470(d) tolerances for indirect or inadvertent residues in beet,
sugar, root at 0.05 ppm; and beet, sugar, tops at 0.05 ppm. That
document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Monsanto
Company, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. A comment was received on the notice of filing.
EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
increased the proposed tolerances for peanut, hay and decreased the
proposed tolerances for sugar beet, molasses and tops, and peanut,
meal. The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for acetochlor including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with acetochlor 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.
    Acetochlor has low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal, and
inhalation routes of exposure and is minimally irritating to the eyes.
A dermal irritation study indicates that it is a severe skin irritant.
Acetochlor is also a strong dermal sensitizer.
    Evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in acute and subchronic
neurotoxicity screening studies in rats, developmental toxicity studies
in rats, and subchronic and chronic studies in dogs. In addition to the
nervous system, the major target organs affected in subchronic and
chronic studies in rats, dogs, and mice exposed to acetochlor are the
liver, thyroid (secondary to liver), kidney, testes, and erythrocytes.
Species-specific target organs include the nasal olfactory epithelium
in rats and the lungs in mice.
    There is no evidence of increased qualitative or quantitative
susceptibility of fetuses or offspring to acetochlor exposure in the
developmental and reproduction toxicity studies in rats and rabbits. In
two developmental toxicity studies in rats, fetal effects (increased
early resorptions, post-implantation loss, and decreased fetal weight)
occurred at doses that also resulted in maternal toxicity (mortality,
clinical signs of toxicity, and decreased maternal body weight gain).
In two rabbit developmental toxicity studies, there were no adverse
fetal effects at the highest doses tested (190 milligrams/kilograms/day
(mg/kg/day) and 300 mg/kg/day); whereas maternal toxicity (body weight
loss) was seen at 190 mg/kg/day in one study. In three reproduction
toxicity studies in rats, offspring effects (decreased pup weights in
the first two studies; decreased pup weights, decreased F2 litter size
at birth, and focal hyperplasia and polypoid adenomata in nasal
epithelium of adult F1 offspring at study termination in the third
study) occurred at the same or higher doses than those resulting in
parental toxicity (decreased body weight or weight gain in the first
two studies; focal hyperplasia and polypoid adenomata in nasal
epithelium of adult F1 offspring at study termination in the third
study). There was no evidence of reproductive toxicity observed at any
dose tested in two of the three reproductive toxicity studies in rats.
The third reproduction study in rats showed a decreased number of
implantations at the highest dose tested of 216 mg/kg/day.
    There was evidence of carcinogenicity in studies conducted with
acetochlor in rats and mice. A 23-month mouse carcinogenicity study
showed weak evidence for increased benign lung tumors in females, and a
78-week study showed weak evidence for increased benign lung tumors in
males. The increases were considered equivocal, based on increases in
benign tumors only, inconsistent dose-responses between the two
studies, inconsistencies in the responses of males and females between
the two studies, lack of pre-neoplastic lung lesions in the 23-month
study (while the 78-week study showed an increase in bronchiolar
hyperplasia), and the variable incidence of lung tumors known to occur
in older mice.
    Two carcinogenicity studies in rats showed an increase in nasal
epithelial tumors and thyroid follicular cell tumors. Thyroid tumor
incidence was relatively low, and there was evidence that the tumors
were due to disruption of thyroid-pituitary homeostasis. There are
acceptable mode of action data for the rat tumors (nasal olfactory
epithelial tumors and thyroid follicular cell tumors) which are
adequate to support a non-linear, margin of exposure (MOE), approach
for assessment of cancer risk. The data show that, like the related
compounds, alachlor and butachlor, tumor formation is dependent upon
local cytotoxicity secondary to oxidative damage by a reactive quinone
imine intermediate. The mechanistic data on nasal tumorigenesis of
acetochlor in the rat, when considered together with the mutagenicity
data on acetochlor and consistent findings in mechanistic and
mutagenicity studies on the closely related compound alachlor, are
considered adequate to demonstrate a cytotoxic, non-mutagenic mode of
tumor induction.
    Because a clear mode of action was demonstrated for the rat tumors,
EPA based the cancer classification on the data from the mouse. Given
the weakness of these data (benign lung tumors in male and female mice
and histiocytic sarcomas in female mice), EPA has classified acetochlor
as having ``Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential'' and
determined that linear quantification of carcinogenic potential would
not be appropriate for the mouse tumors. The rat nasal tumors, with a
point of departure (POD) of 10 mg/kg/day, are the most sensitive effect
for cancer risk. The chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD), based on
the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 2.0 mg/kg/day from the
chronic dog study, will be protective of both non-cancer and cancer
effects, including rat nasal tumors, thyroid tumors, and mouse tumors.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by acetochlor as well as the NOAEL and the
lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies
can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document Acetochlor Human
Health Risk Assessment for Proposed New Uses of Acetochlor on Sugar
Beet and Peanut at pages 41-53 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-
0829.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological POD and levels of concern to use in evaluating
the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that
have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the
toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference
values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful
analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose
at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest
dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL).
Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to
calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a population-
adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe margin of
exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any
amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency
estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the
adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for acetochlor used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1. of this unit.

  Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Acetochlor for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, for risk    Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors          assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (All populations)..  NOAEL = 150 mg/kg/    Acute RfD = 1.5 mg/  Acute oral neurotoxicity in rats
                                    day.                  kg/day.              (MRID 45357501)
                                   UFA = 10x...........  aPAD = 1.5 mg/kg/    LOAEL = 500 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFH = 10x...........   day.                 decreased motor activity in
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        females.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL= 2.0 mg/kg/day  Chronic RfD = 0.02   Chronic oral toxicity in beagle
                                   UFA = 10x...........   mg/kg/day.           dogs (MRID 41565118)
                                   UFH = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.02 mg/kg/   LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day based on
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........   day.                 increased salivation and
                                                                               histopathology in the testes,
                                                                               kidney, and liver.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (all routes)..............  ``Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential''. The cRfD of 0.02 mg/kg/day
                                              will be protective of both non-cancer and cancer effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level. mg/kg/day =
  milligram/kilogram/day. NOAEL= no observed adverse effect level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c
  = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human
  (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to acetochlor, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing acetochlor tolerances in 40 CFR
180.470. EPA assessed dietary exposures from acetochlor in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified
for acetochlor. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in
America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed
tolerance level residues and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all
commodities.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA
assumed anticipated residues from field trial data and 100 PCT for all
commodities.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A.; based on
the results of carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice, EPA classified
acetochlor as having ``Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential''
but determined that the chronic risk assessment will be protective of
both non-cancer and cancer effects. Therefore, a separate exposure
assessment to evaluate cancer risk is unnecessary.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for acetochlor in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of acetochlor. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM
GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of acetochlor
for acute exposures are estimated to be 74.9 parts per billion (ppb)
for surface water and 129.0 ppb for ground water. EDWCs of acetochlor
for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be
4.84 ppb for surface water and 82.6 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 129.0 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 82.6 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Acetochlor is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    The chloroacetanilides have been evaluated by the Agency and the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific
Advisory Panel (SAP) as a related group of chemicals for this purpose.
Acetochlor is included in a Cumulative Assessment Group of
chloroacetanilide pesticides. For purposes of a cumulative risk
assessment, it was determined that the common mechanism of toxicity
group consists of alachlor, acetochlor, and butachlor. Butachlor is
excluded from the group for risk assessment purposes at present because
there are no registered uses or tolerances for this chemical in the
U.S. The group was selected based on common endpoints of:
    i. Nasal turbinate tumors in rats, and a known mechanism of
toxicity for development of these tumors.
    ii. Induction of hepatic uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyl
transferase (UDPGT), which results in increased incidence of thyroid
follicular cell tumors secondary to disruption of pituitary-thyroid
homeostasis. Thyroid effects were not included in the final

cumulative assessment of the chloroacetanilide herbicides because they
were determined to occur at excessively toxic dose levels, and
therefore were not considered relevant to human risk assessment. Nasal
tumors represent the most sensitive endpoint for both compounds.
    An updated cumulative risk assessment of the chloroacetanilide
pesticides acetochlor and alachlor conducted in April, 2007 provides an
assessment of existing and new uses of those chemicals to date. Based
on the most recent chloroacetanilide cumulative assessment group (CAG)
cumulative risk assessment, cumulative risk is not of concern. A
revised quantitative cumulative assessment was not conducted because
the proposed amended use would not affect the cumulative risk results.
Not only is acetochlor a very minor contributor to chloroacetanilide
cumulative risk when compared to alachlor, but adding the use on sugar
beets and peanuts will only have a minor impact on acetochlor exposure
since only low residues occurred on sugar beet and peanut food
commodities.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. No increase in
susceptibility was seen in developmental toxicity studies in rats and
rabbits or in three multi-generation reproductive toxicity studies in
rats. Toxicity to offspring was observed at dose levels which were the
same or greater than those causing maternal or parental toxicity. Based
on the results of developmental and reproductive toxicity studies,
there is no concern for increased qualitative and/or quantitative
susceptibility of the young following exposure to acetochlor.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X for acute dietary, chronic dietary, and
dermal. That decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for acetochlor is complete for the purpose
of evaluating this tolerance petition.
    ii. Evidence of neurotoxicity from exposure to acetochlor was
observed in several oral studies. However, these effects were typically
observed at high doses. The points of departure selected for risk
assessment are protective of the potential neurotoxicity observed in
the database.
    iii. There is no evidence that acetochlor results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study. No increase in susceptibility was seen in developmental toxicity
studies in rats and rabbits or in three multi-generation reproductive
toxicity studies in rats. Toxicity to offspring was observed at dose
levels which were the same or greater than those causing maternal or
parental toxicity. Based on the results of developmental and
reproductive toxicity studies, there is no concern for increased
qualitative and/or quantitative susceptibility following exposure to
acetochlor.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground
and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to acetochlor in
drinking water. The acute dietary exposure analysis used tolerance
level residues and 100 PCT. The chronic dietary exposure analysis used
field trial residues and 100 PCT. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by acetochlor.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
aPAD and cPAD. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are
evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and
residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate
MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. In examining acute aggregate risk, the only pathway
of exposure relevant to the acute time frame is dietary exposure.
Therefore, the acute aggregate risk is comprised of exposures to
acetochlor residues in food and drinking water and is equivalent to the
acute dietary risk estimates. Using the exposure assumptions discussed
in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food
and water to acetochlor will occupy 1.6% of the aPAD for all infants (<
1 year old), the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. In examining chronic aggregate risk, the only
pathway of exposure relevant to the chronic time frame is dietary
exposure. Therefore, the chronic aggregate risk is comprised of
exposures to acetochlor residues in food and drinking water and is
equivalent to the chronic dietary risk. Using the exposure assumptions
described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that
chronic exposure to acetochlor from food and water will utilize 26% of
the cPAD for all infants (< 1 year old), the population group receiving
the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for acetochlor.
    3. Short- and intermediate-term aggregate risk. Short-term and
intermediate-term aggregate exposure take into account short-term or
intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure from food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Acetochlor is
not registered for any use patterns that would result in residential
exposure. Therefore, the short-term or intermediate-term aggregate risk
is the sum of the risk from exposure to acetochlor through food and
water and will not be greater than the chronic aggregate risk.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency has
concluded that assessments using a non-linear approach (e.g. a chronic
RfD-based approach) will adequately protect for all chronic toxicity,
including carcinogenicity that could result from exposure to
acetochlor. Chronic aggregate risk estimates are below the Agency's
level of concern, therefore, cancer risk is also below the Agency's
level of concern.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to acetochlor residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An Enforcement Analytical Method is available to enforce the
proposed tolerances. The method is a high performance liquid
chromatography/oxidative coulometric electrochemical detector (HPLC/
OCED) method and is listed as Method I in the Pesticide

Analytical Manual (PAM) Vol. II (Sec.  180.470).

B. International Residue Limits

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

C. Response to Comments

    EPA received one comment from an anonymous citizen objecting to the
presence of any pesticide residues on food. The Agency understands the
commenter's concerns and recognizes that some individuals believe that
pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops. However, the
existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the FFDCA states
that tolerances may be set when persons seeking such tolerances or
exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety
standard imposed by that statute. This citizen's comment appears to be
directed at the underlying statute and not EPA's implementation of it;
the citizen has made no contention that EPA has acted in violation of
the statutory framework.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    The requested tolerance levels for residues of acetochlor on the
raw agricultural commodities beet, sugar, tops, and peanut, hay were
changed as a result of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) Tolerance Calculation Procedures. Tolerance
proposals for the processed commodities beet, sugar, molasses and
peanut, meal, were changed as a result of the calculation based on the
highest average field trial residue multiplied by the average
processing factor.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of acetochlor,
(2-chloro-2'-methyl-6'-ethyl-N-ethoxymethylacetanilide), including its
metabolites and degradates, on beet, sugar, dried pulp at 0.50 ppm,
beet, sugar, molasses at 0.80 ppm, beet, sugar, roots at 0.30 ppm,
beet, sugar, tops at 0.70 ppm, peanut at 0.20 ppm, peanut, hay at 7.0
ppm, and peanut, meal at 0.25 ppm; and to delete from 40 CFR 180.470(d)
tolerances for indirect or inadvertent residues in beet, sugar, root at
0.05 ppm, and beet, sugar, tops at 0.05 ppm because they will now be
covered under the sugar beet tolerances from direct application to the
crop.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: January 10, 2014.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--AMENDED

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.470:
0
a. Add alphabetically the commodities to the table in paragraph (a).
0
b. Remove the following commodities in the table in paragraph (d)
``Beet, sugar, root'' and ``Beet, sugar, tops.''
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  180.470  Acetochlor; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beet, sugar, dried pulp........................                     0.50
Beet, sugar, molasses..........................                     0.80
Beet, sugar, roots.............................                     0.30
Beet, sugar, tops..............................                     0.70

                                * * * * *
Peanut.........................................                     0.20
Peanut, hay....................................                      7.0
Peanut, meal...................................                     0.25

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-01183 Filed 1-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28173-28176]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12884]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80934; File No. SR-NYSE-2017-27]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Price List Regarding the Liquidity Provider Incentive Program

June 15, 2017.
    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 June 1, 2017, 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 its Price List regarding the
Liquidity Provider Incentive Program. The proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site 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 its Price List regarding the
Liquidity Provider Incentive Program.\4\ Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to change the manner by which rebates would be payable under
the Liquidity Provider Incentive Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 77591 (April 12,
2016), 81 FR 22656 (April 18, 2016) (SR-NYSE-2016-26); 77812 (May
11, 2016), 81 FR 30594 (May 17, 2016) (SR-NYSE-2016-34); and 79210
(November 1, 2016), 81 FR 78213 (November 7, 2016) (SR-NYSE-2016-
68).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, pursuant to the Liquidity Provider Incentive Program,
the Exchange pays Users \5\ of NYSE Bonds a daily rebate based on the
number of CUSIPs \6\ on the NYSE Bonds Book for which a User meets the
quoting requirements in one or more of three maturity classifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Rule 86(b)(2)(M) defines a User as any Member or Member
Organization, Sponsored Participant, or Authorized Trader that is
authorized to access NYSE Bonds. For purposes of the Liquidity
provider Incentive Program, a User is a Member or Member
Organization that is authorized to access NYSE Bonds.
    \6\ CUSIP stands for Committee on Uniform Securities
Identification Procedures. A CUSIP number identifies most financial
instruments, including: Stocks of all registered U.S. and Canadian
companies, commercial paper, and U.S. government and municipal
bonds. The CUSIP system--owned by the American Bankers Association
and managed by Standard & Poor's--facilitates the clearance and
settlement process of securities. See http://www.sec.gov/answers/cusip.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The daily rebate amount is tiered based on the number of qualifying
CUSIPs that meet quoting requirements, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Number of qualifying CUSIPs                 Daily rebate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
400-599.................................................            $500
600-799.................................................           1,000
800 or more.............................................           1,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a CUSIP to be included in the daily rebate calculation, a User
is required to provide continuous two-sided quotes for a minimum of 100
bonds for at least 80% of the day's Core Bond Trading Session,\7\ and
satisfy the average spread and average duration requirement.\8\ The
Exchange makes the determination of whether a User has met the
prescribed quoting requirements each trading day to determine the
amount of daily rebate for which a User qualifies. The Exchange then
aggregates the daily rebate for each User and pays the total amount of
the accumulated rebate to each User at the end of every month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Core Bond Trading Session commences at 8:00 a.m. ET and
concludes at 5:00 p.m. ET. See Rule 86(i)(2).
    \8\ See Quoting Requirements under NYSE Bonds System, Liquidity
Provider Incentive Program, on the Exchange Price List at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/NYSE_Price_List.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to change the Liquidity Provider Incentive
Program to allow a User to enter quotes and orders under a Unique User
ID to potentially qualify for more rebates. In connection with this
proposal, the Exchange proposes to replace the term `User' with `Unique
User' and adopt a definition of the term `Unique User' in the Price
List related to the Liquidity Provider Incentive Program. The term
`Unique User' would mean a User, a trading desk of a User, or a
customer \9\ of a User, on whose behalf a member or member organization
enters quotes or orders under a Unique User ID that such User requests
from and is provided by the Exchange. At the request of a User, the
Exchange will assign a separate Unique User ID to each trading desk or
customer of such User. A User may request any number of Unique User IDs
from the Exchange. The proposed change would permit a User, based on a
Unique User ID, that meets the quoting requirements under the Liquidity
Provider Incentive Program to qualify for the rebates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A customer may be, for example, a hedge fund that is not a
member or member organization and therefore unable to access the
NYSE Bonds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To illustrate, consider that ABC Securities (``ABC''), a NYSE User,
has two separate trading desks, the Electronic Market Making Desk and
the ETF Trading Desk, that operate independently of each other. Each of
these desks has its own unique trading strategy. Under the proposal, at
the User's request, the Exchange would assign each desk a Unique User
ID, and monitor the quoting activity associated with each Unique User
ID to calculate the appropriate rebate attributable to each desk
independently. Under the proposal, ABC would be eligible to receive two
separate rebate amounts based on the performance of each independent
trade desk.
    The Exchange is not proposing any other change to the manner in
which rebates are calculated or the level of the rebates payable under
the Liquidity Provider Incentive Program. The Exchange notes that to
the extent a member or member organization delineates its activity, the
member or member organization, as a result, may or may not qualify for
the rebate.
    The proposed rule change is intended to promote greater
participation in the Liquidity Provider Incentive Program and provide
participants with an incentive to transact more on the NYSE Bonds
system.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to amend
the Liquidity Provider Incentive Program for the bonds trading
platform, which would provide daily rebates based on activity
associated with a Unique User ID that meets the Liquidity Provider
Incentive Program's stated quoting requirements. The Liquidity Provider
Incentive Program is already available to Users and the Exchange is
proposing to change the program to permit participation in the
Liquidity Provider Incentive Program based on Unique User IDs for
providing quotes and trades to the Exchange, rather than based solely
on the quoting and trading activity of individual Users.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to allow a member or member organization to qualify for
rebates based on quotes and orders associated with a Unique User ID
that a member or member organization requests. The purpose of the
proposed rule change is to potentially permit Users to earn more
rebates. The Exchange believes that providing additional opportunities
to member and member organizations to earn rebates would encourage such
participants to provide increased displayed liquidity on the Exchange
for the benefit of all trading participants.
    The Exchange believes that the current quoting requirements to
qualify for the daily rebate, which are based on the average spread and
average duration, would continue to apply to each Unique User ID under
the proposal, and therefore would not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, and brokers or

dealers because all Users that opt in to the Liquidity Provider
Incentive Program would be subject to the same requirements. The
Exchange further believes that the proposed amendment is reasonable
because it is designed to provide an incentive for member organizations
to increase displayed liquidity at the Exchange, thereby increasing
traded volume.
    The Exchange believes the proposed amendment to the Liquidity
Provider Incentive Program is intended to provide additional liquidity
to the market and add competition to the existing group of liquidity
providers. The Exchange believes that by providing Users with the
ability to earn increased rebates, the Exchange is rewarding aggressive
liquidity providers in the market, and by doing so, the Exchange will
encourage the additional utilization of, and interaction with, the NYSE
and provide customers with the premier venue for price discovery,
liquidity, and competitive quotes.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in that it would apply
uniformly to all Users of the NYSE Bonds system. Each User that is a
member or member organization has the ability to request any number of
Unique User IDs from the Exchange and each Unique User ID would equally
qualify for the rebate under the program. All similarly situated Users
would be subject to the same fee and rebate structure, and each User
would have the ability to determine the extent to which the Exchange's
proposed fee and rebate structure will provide it with an economic
incentive to use the NYSE Bonds system, and model its business
accordingly.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\12\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Debt securities typically trade in a decentralized
OTC dealer market that is less liquid and transparent than the equities
markets. The Exchange believes that the proposed change would increase
competition with these OTC venues by enabling increased participation
to engage in bonds transactions on the Exchange and rewarding market
participants for actively quoting and providing liquidity in the only
transparent bond market, which the Exchange believes will enhance
market quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues that
are not transparent. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually review, and consider adjusting its fees and rebates to
remain competitive with other exchanges as well as with alternative
trading systems and other venues that are not required to comply with
the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. As a result of these
considerations, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change
will impair the ability of member organizations or competing order
execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the
financial markets.

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

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

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

    Because the 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 \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \15\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \16\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposed rule change may become operative immediately on filing.
The Exchange states that waiver of the operative delay would be
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because the proposed rule change would allow the Exchange, within 30
days after filing the proposed rule change, to expand the Liquidity
Provider Incentive Program by allowing Users to identify additional
Unique User IDs for purposes of calculating the rebate. The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would increase the opportunity
for participants to earn rebates under the Liquidity Provider Incentive
Program and thereby incentivize member organizations to increase
displayed bond liquidity on the Exchange. The Commission believes the
waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby
waives the operative delay and designates the proposed rule change
operative upon filing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \17\ 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 change 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2017-27 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2017-27. 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 Web site
(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all
subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the
proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all
written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 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
such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSE-2017-27, and should be submitted on or before July
11, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-12884 Filed 6-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 21, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62844-62846]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24760]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0687; FRL-9918-17-Region 7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri, Restriction of Emissions of Particulate Matter From
Industrial Processes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submitted by the State of Missouri on May 8, 2012, and October
17, 2013, related to a Missouri rule titled ``Restriction of Emission
of Particulate Matter from Industrial Processes.'' This action amends
the SIP in four ways. The first is it updates an outdated reference in
the current SIP approved rule. Second, it provides a hierarchy of
compliance measurement approaches for Particulate Matter (PM) emissions
from industrial processes. Third, it provides a clarification on
applicability of the provisions. And fourth, it deletes redundant
definitions.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective December 22, 2014,
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November
20, 2014. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2014-0687, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Larry Gonzalez, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2014-0687. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30
excluding legal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24
hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Gonzalez, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at

913-551-7041 or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
III. What action is EPA taking?

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Missouri on May 8,
2012, and October 17, 2013, related to a Missouri rule titled
``Restriction of Emission of Particulate Matter from Industrial
Processes'' 10 CSR 10-6.400. This action amends the SIP to update an
outdated reference in the rule, provides a hierarchy of measurement
approaches used for compliance, clarifies the applicability of the
rule, and deletes redundant definitions found in the rule.
    Today's action completes four administrative actions. First, it
approves into the SIP the update to rule 10 CSR 10-6.400 so that it
references the new consolidated rule 10 CSR 10-6.405 ``Restriction of
Particulate Matter Emissions From Fuel Burning Equipment Used For
Indirect Heating.'' This action follows an earlier action EPA took on
September 13, 2012, to amend the Missouri SIP which rescinded area-
specific indirect heating rules, 10 CSR 10-2.040, 10-3.060, 10-4.040,
and 10-5.030 and added a new rule, 10 CSR 10-6.405 which consolidated
the area rules into a single rule (see 76 FR 56555). Second, it amends
the test methods section to add a hierarchy of emission measurement
approaches used for compliance testing--a revision requested by EPA
that has been used in other Missouri rules. Third, it explicitly
clarifies that the rule provisions are only applicable to the
``filterable'' particulate matter. And, fourth, it eliminates
definitions in the rule 10 CSR 10.6.400 that are also found at 10 CSR
10-6.020 ``Definitions and Common Reference Tables.''

II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In
addition, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the
CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve this SIP revision. We
are publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because we view
this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment.
However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register,
we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed
rule to approve this SIP revision, if adverse comments are received on
this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period
on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this
time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the
ADDRESSES section of this document. If EPA receives adverse comment, we
will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the
public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We will
address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms
of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 22, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule

and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 24, 2014.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry under ``Chapter 6--Air Quality Standards, Definitions,
Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations
for the State of Missouri'' for ``10-6.400'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                            EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              State
          Missouri citation                           Title                 effective            EPA approval date                   Explanation
                                                                               date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Missouri Department of Natural Resources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chapter 6--Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
10-6.400.............................  Restrictions of Emission of            06/27/13  10/21/14 [Insert Federal Register
                                        Particulate Matter from                          citation].
                                        Industrial Processes.

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

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2014-24760 Filed 10-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 198)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52877-52880]
[DOCID:fr15oc09-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0909; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-172-AD;
Amendment 39-16045; AD 2007-23-05 R1]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems Model SAAB
2000 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above that would revise an existing AD. This AD results
from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated
by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an
unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in
flight * * * and on ground, * * * Special Federal Aviation
Regulation 88 (SFAR88) * * * required a safety review of the
aircraft Fuel Tank System * * *.
* * * * *
    Fuel Airworthiness Limitations are items arising from a systems
safety analysis that have been shown to have failure mode(s)
associated with an `unsafe condition' * * *. These are identified in
Failure Conditions for which an unacceptable probability of ignition
risk could exist if specific tasks and/or practices are not
performed in accordance with the manufacturers' requirements.

    This AD requires actions that are intended to address the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: This AD becomes effective October 30, 2009.
    On December 11, 2007 (72 FR 62564, November 6, 2007), the Director
of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of
certain publications listed in the AD.
    We must receive comments on this AD by November 30, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Saab
Aircraft AB, SAAB Aerosystems, SE 581 88, Link[ouml]ping, Sweden;
telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.saabgroup.com.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace
Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On October 27, 2007, we issued AD 2007-23-05, Amendment 39-15251
(72 FR 62564, November 6, 2007). That AD applied to all Saab Model SAAB
2000 airplanes. That AD required revising the Airworthiness Limitations
Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
    Critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) are
limitation requirements to preserve a critical ignition source
prevention feature of the fuel tank system design that is necessary to
prevent the occurrence of an unsafe condition. The purpose of a CDCCL
is to provide instruction to retain the critical ignition source
prevention feature during configuration change that may be caused by
alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions. A CDCCL is not a periodic
inspection.
    Since we issued that AD, we have determined that it is necessary to
clarify the AD's intended effect on spare and on-airplane fuel tank
system components, regarding the use of maintenance manuals and
instructions for continued airworthiness.
    Section 91.403(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
91.403(c)) specifies the following:

    No person may operate an aircraft for which a manufacturer's
maintenance manual or instructions for continued airworthiness has
been issued that contains an airworthiness limitation section unless
the mandatory * * * procedures * * * have been complied with.

    Some operators have questioned whether existing components affected
by the new CDCCLs must be reworked. We did not intend for the AD to
retroactively require rework of components that had been maintained
using acceptable methods before the effective date of the AD. Owners
and operators of the affected airplanes therefore are not required to
rework affected components identified as airworthy or installed on the
affected airplanes before the required revisions of the ALS. But once
the CDCCLs are incorporated into the ALS, future maintenance actions on
components must be done in accordance with those CDCCLs.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States.

Differences Between the AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a note within the AD.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    This revision merely clarifies the intended effect on spare and on-
airplane fuel tank system components, and makes no substantive change
to the AD's requirements. For this reason, it is found that notice and
opportunity for prior public comment for this action are unnecessary,
and good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than
30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0909; Directorate
Identifier 2009-NM-172-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing amendment 39-15251 (72 FR
62564, November 6, 2007) and adding the following new AD:

2007-23-05 R1 Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems: Amendment 39-16045. Docket
No. FAA-2009-0909; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-172-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective October
30, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD revises AD 2007-23-05.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems Model SAAB
2000 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

    Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance according
to paragraph (g) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in
flight * * * and on ground, the FAA published Special Federal
Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR 88) in June 2001. SFAR 88 required a
safety review of the aircraft Fuel Tank System to determine that the
design meets the requirements of FAR (Federal Aviation Regulation)
Sec.  25.901 and Sec.  25.981(a) and (b).
    A similar regulation has been recommended by the JAA (Joint
Aviation Authorities) to the European National Aviation Authorities
in JAA letter 04/00/02/07/03-L024 of 3 February 2003. The review was
requested to be mandated by NAA's (National Aviation Authorities)
using JAR (Joint Aviation Regulation) Sec.  25.901(c), Sec.
25.1309.
    In August 2005 EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) published
a policy statement on the process for developing instructions for
maintenance and inspection of Fuel Tank System ignition source
prevention (EASA D 2005/CPRO, www.easa.eu.int/home/cert_policy_
statements_en.html) that also included the EASA expectations with
regard to compliance times of the corrective actions on the unsafe
and the not unsafe part of the harmonised design review results. On
a global scale the TC (type certificate) holders committed
themselves to the EASA published compliance dates (see EASA policy
statement). The EASA policy statement has been revised in March
2006: the date of 31-12-2005 for the unsafe related actions has now
been set at 01-07-2006.
    Fuel Airworthiness Limitations are items arising from a systems
safety analysis that have been shown to have failure mode(s)
associated with an `unsafe condition' as defined in FAA's memo 2003-
112-15 `SFAR 88--Mandatory Action Decision Criteria'. These are
identified in Failure Conditions for which an unacceptable
probability of ignition risk could exist if specific tasks and/or
practices are not performed in accordance with the manufacturers'
requirements.
    This EASA Airworthiness Directive mandates the Fuel System
Airworthiness Limitations (comprising maintenance/inspection tasks
and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL)) for
the type of aircraft, that resulted from the design reviews and the
JAA recommendation and EASA policy statement mentioned above.
    The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations
Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to
incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems.

Restatement of AD 2007-23-05, With No Changes

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 3 months after December 11, 2007 (the effective date
of AD 2007-23-05), revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness to incorporate the maintenance and inspection
instructions in Part 1 of Saab Fuel Airworthiness Limitations 2000
LKS 009032, dated February 14, 2006. For all tasks identified in
Part 1 of Saab Fuel Airworthiness Limitations 2000 LKS 009032, dated
February 14, 2006, the initial compliance times start from December
11, 2007, and the repetitive inspections must be accomplished
thereafter at the interval specified in Part 1 of Saab Fuel
Airworthiness Limitations 2000 LKS 009032, dated February 14, 2006.
    (2) Within 12 months after December 11, 2007, revise the ALS of
the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the
CDCCLs as defined in Part 2 of Saab Fuel Airworthiness Limitations
2000 LKS 009032, dated February 14, 2006.
    (3) Except as provided by paragraph (g) of this AD: After
accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2)
of this AD, no alternative inspection, inspection intervals, or
CDCCLs may be used.
    (4) Where Saab Fuel Airworthiness Limitations 2000 LKS 009032,
dated February 14, 2006, allows for exceptional short-term
extensions, an exception is acceptable to the FAA if it is approved
by the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards
Certificate Holding District Office.

New Information:

Explanation of CDCCL Requirements

    Note 2: Notwithstanding any other maintenance or operational
requirements, components that have been identified as airworthy or
installed on the affected airplanes before the revision of the
airworthiness limitations section (ALS), as required by paragraph
(f) of this AD, do not need to be reworked in accordance with the

CDCCLs. However, once the airworthiness limitations section has been
revised, future maintenance actions on these components must be done
in accordance with the CDCCLs.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 3: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN:
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-
116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (425)
227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which
the AMOC applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI)
or principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2006-0199, dated July 11, 2006; and Saab Fuel
Airworthiness Limitations 2000 LKS 009032, dated February 14, 2006;
for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Saab Fuel Airworthiness Limitations 2000 LKS
009032, dated February 14, 2006, to do the actions required by this
AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register previously approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information on December
11, 2007 (72 FR 62564, November 6, 2007).
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Saab
Aircraft AB, SAAB Aerosystems, SE 581 88, Link[ouml]ping, Sweden;
telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://
www.saabgroup.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 18, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-24542 Filed 10-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P