[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 249 (Monday, December 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67751-67752]
[FR Doc No: 2018-28382]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84944; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2018-077]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change To List and Trade Shares of the JPMorgan Inflation Managed Bond
ETF of the J.P. Morgan Exchange-Traded Fund Trust Under Rule 14.11(i),
Managed Fund Shares

December 21, 2018.
    On November 2, 2018, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade
shares of the JPMorgan Inflation Managed Bond ETF of the J.P. Morgan
Exchange-Traded Fund Trust under Rule 14.11(i) (``Managed Fund
Shares''). The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on November 21, 2018.\3\ The Commission has received
no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84604 (November 15,
2018), 83 FR 58789.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is January 5, 2019. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period

within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ designates
February 19, 2019, as the date by which the Commission shall either
approve or disapprove or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change (File Number SR-CboeBZX-2018-077).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-28382 Filed 12-28-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Record for the Final Metal Product and Machinery Rule Adult Lead Benefits, Weighted Estimates ( Final Option: Traditional Extrapolation) Category Health Effect Reduced Cases Annual Benefits ( 2001$) Female BI 0.0000 $ 0.00 CBA 0.0000 $ 0.00 CHD 0.0000 $ 0.00 Mortality 0.0000 $ 0.00 BI 0.0000 $ 0.00 Male CBA 0.0000 $ 0.00 CHD 0.0000 $ 0.00 Hypertension 0.0000 $ 0.00 Mortality 0.0000 $ 0.00 Total $ 0.00 February 14, 2003 Page 1 of 1 exlleadw. xls  Adult Lead


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 74 (Friday, April 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21233-21234]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08871]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-144-000]

Florida Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on March 31, 2015 Florida Gas Transmission
Company, LLC (FGT), 1300 Main St., Houston, Texas 77002, filed in
Docket No. CP15-144-000, an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the
Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act and Parts 157 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations
requesting authorization to construct, own, and operate: (1)
Approximately 3.0 miles of 30-inch mainline loop extension (Branford
Loop); (2) one new reciprocating 5,000 horsepower compressor unit and
building at Compressor Station (CS) 16; (3) re-wheel an existing
turbine compressor unit at CS 16; (4) approximately 5.7 miles of 20-
inch loop extension (Jacksonville Loop); and (5) a new regulator
station and appurtenant auxiliary facilities, all known as its
Jacksonville Expansion Project. The project will provide an initial
60,000 MMBtu/d, and an expansion of 15,000 MMBtu/d of firm
transportation to two existing delivery points for Peoples Gas System
(PGS), a division of Tampa Electric Company all in Suwanee, Bradford,
Columbia and Clay Counties, Florida, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to
Stephen Veatch, Senior Director of Certificates & Reporting, Florida
Gas Transmission Company, LLC, 1300 Main St., Houston, Texas, 77002, or
call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,

or via eMail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with he Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and ill not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    Comment Date: May 4, 2015.

    Dated: April 13, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08871 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 222 (Wednesday, November 18, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71944-71947]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29466]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0376; FRL-9936-48]

2-Propenoic Acid, Polymer With Ethenylbenzene and (1-
Methylethenyl)benzene; Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of 2-propenoic acid, polymer with
ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl)benzene with a minimum average
molecular weight (in amu) of 2,000 (CAS Reg. No. 52831-04-6) when used
as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation. BASF
Corporation, submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a
maximum permissible level for residues of 2-propenoic acid, polymer
with ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl)benzene on food or feed
commodities.

DATES: This regulation is effective November 18, 2015. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 19, 2016,
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-2015-0376, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     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 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. 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-2015-0376 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
January 19, 2016. 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-2015-
0376, by one of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of August 26, 2015 (80 FR 51759) (FRL-9931-
74), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP) IN-10814
filed by BASF Corporation, 100 Park Avenue, Florham Park, NJ 07932. The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-
propenoic acid, polymer with ethenylbenzene and (1-
methylethenyl)benzene (CAS Reg. No. 52831-04-6). That document included
a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner and solicited
comments on the petitioner's request. There were no comments received
in response to the notice of filing.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and use 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 an exemption from the
requirement of 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 . . . '' and
specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information 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. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no
risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d).
    2-propenoic acid, polymer with ethenylbenzene and (1-
methylethenyl)benzene conforms to the definition of a polymer given in
40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to
identify low-risk polymers.
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
    7. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties
consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length as specified in 40 CFR
723.250(d)(6).
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
    8. The polymer's minimum number average MW is greater than 1,000
and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10%
oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material
below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive
functional groups.
    Thus, 2-propenoic acid, polymer with ethenylbenzene and (1-
methylethenyl)benzene meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered
low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria
in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary,
inhalation, or dermal exposure 2-propenoic acid, polymer with
ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl)benzene.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that 2-propenoic acid, polymer with
ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl)benzene could be present in all raw
and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that
non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The minimum number
average MW of 2-propenoic acid, polymer with ethenylbenzene and (1-
methylethenyl)benzene is 2,000 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this

size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract
or through intact human skin. Since 2-propenoic acid, polymer with
ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl)benzene conform to the criteria
that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks
associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably
foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not
necessary to protect the public health.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of
Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found 2-propenoic acid, polymer with ethenylbenzene and
(1-methylethenyl)benzene to share a common mechanism of toxicity with
any other substances, and 2-propenoic acid, polymer with ethenylbenzene
and (1-methylethenyl)benzene does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that -2-propenoic acid,
polymer with ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl)benzene does not have
a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information
regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes
that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and
children. Due to the expected low toxicity of 2-propenoic acid, polymer
with ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl)benzene, EPA has not used a
safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the
additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of 2-propenoic acid, polymer with
ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl)benzene.

VIII. Other Considerations

A. Existing Exemptions From a Tolerance

    There are no existing tolerance exemptions for 2-propenoic acid,
polymer with ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl)benzene.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

C. 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 a MRL for 2-propenoic acid, polymer
with ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl)benzene.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of polymers of
tamarind seed gum, 2-hydroxypropyl ether from the requirement of a
tolerance will be safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
(15 U.S.C. 272 note).

XI. 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: November 9, 2015.
Susan Lewis,
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.  180.960, add alphabetically the following polymer to the
table to read as follows:

Sec.  [emsp14]180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-Propenoic acid, polymer with ethenylbenzene and (1-        52831-04-6.
 methylethenyl)benzene, minimum number average molecular
 weight (in amu), 2,000.................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2015-29466 Filed 11-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 26388]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09568]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Noise Exposure Maps Notice for Piedmont Triad International
Airport, Greensboro, North Carolina

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA announces its determination that the noise exposure
maps submitted by the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority for the Piedmont
Triad International Airport are in compliance with applicable
requirements.

APPLICABLE DATE:  The effective date of the FAA's determination on the
noise exposure maps is April 27, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Memphis Airports District Office,
Tommy Dupree, Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, 2600 Thousand
Oaks Blvd., Suite 2250, Memphis, Tennessee 38118, Telephone: (901) 322-
8181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA finds
that the noise exposure maps submitted for the Piedmont Triad
International Airport under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47501 et seq.
(Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act) and 14 CFR part 150 are in
compliance with applicable requirements of 14 CFR part 150, effective
January 13, 2004.
    Under 49 U.S.C. Section 47503 of the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act (hereinafter referred to as ``the Act''), an airport
operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure maps which meet
applicable regulations and which depict non-compatible land uses as of
the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected
aircraft operations during a forecast period that is at least five (5)
years in the future, and the ways in which such operations will affect
such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation
with interested and affected parties in the local community, government
agencies, and persons using the airport. An airport operator who has
submitted noise exposure maps that are found by the FAA to be in
compliance with the requirements of 14 CFR part 150, promulgated
pursuant to the Act, may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA
approval which sets forth the measures the operator has taken or
proposes to take to reduce existing non-compatible uses and prevent the
introduction of additional non-compatible uses.
    The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure maps and
accompanying documentation submitted by the Piedmont Triad Airport
Authority. The documentation that constitutes the ``Noise Exposure
Maps'' (NEM) as defined in Section 150.7 includes a 2020 Base Year NEM,
Figure 7-1, and a 2025 Future Year NEM, Figure 7-2, located in Chapter
7 of the report. The figures contained within Chapter 7 are scaled to
fit within the report context; however, the official, to scale, 2020
Base Year NEM and 2025 Future Year NEM are an attachment to the
official report.
    The Noise Exposure Maps contain current and forecast information
including the depiction of the airport and its boundaries, the runway
configurations, land uses such as single and two-family residential;
multi-family residential; mixed residential and commercial; commercial
and office; industrial and manufacturing; transportation, parking and
utilities; public facilities and institutions; unclassified; open
space, cemetaries, and outdoor recreation; vacant land; places of
worship; schools; historic structures; hospitals; and day care/assisted
living facilities and those areas within the Day Night Average Sound
Level (DNL) 65, 70 and 75 noise contours. Estimates of the residential
population within the 2020 Base Year and 2025 Future Year noise
contours are shown in Table 7-1 of Chapter 7 of the report. Figure 5-1
in Chapter 5 displays the location of noise monitoring sites. Flight
track maps are provided in Figures 6-6 through 6-8 of Chapter 6. The
type and frequency of aircraft operations, including nighttime
operations and engine runups, are found in Tables 6-7 through 6-15 in
Chapter 6.
    As discussed in Chapter 9 of the report, the Piedmont Triad Airport
Authority provided the general public the opportunity to review and
comment on the NEMs. This public comment period opened on November 17,
2020 and closed on December 17, 2020. A public workshop was held on
June 27, 2019 on the Part 150 process. A public workshop and hearing
for the NEMs was held on December 8, 2020. All comments received during
the public comment period and throughout the development of the NEMs,
as well as responses to these comments, are contained in Appendix G of
the report.
    The FAA has determined that these noise exposure maps and
accompanying documentation are in compliance with applicable
requirements. This determination is effective on April 27, 2022.
    FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is
limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with
the procedures contained in Appendix A of 14 CFR part 150. Such
determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's data,
information or plans, or a commitment to approve a noise compatibility
program or to fund the implementation of that program. If questions
arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties to
noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map submitted
under Section 47503 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not
involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific
properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in
interpreting the noise exposure maps to resolve questions concerning,
for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of
Section 47506 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the
ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local
government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way
under Part 150 or through FAA's review of noise exposure maps.
Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise
exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface
rests exclusively with the airport operator that submitted those maps,
or with those public agencies and planning authorities with which
consultation is required under Section 47503 of the Act. The FAA has
relied on the certification by the airport operator, under Section
150.21, that the statutorily required consultation has been
accomplished.
    Copies of the full noise exposure map documentation and of the
FAA's evaluation of the maps are available for examination at the
following locations: Federal Aviation Administration, Memphis Airports
District Office, 2600 Thousand Oaks Blvd., Memphis, Tennessee 38118,
and Piedmont Triad International Airport, 1000A Ted Johnson Parkway,
Greensboro, North Carolina 27409.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tommy Dupree, Manager, Memphis
Airports District Office, Federal Aviation Administration, 2600
Thousand Oaks Blvd., Suite 2250, Memphis, TN 38118, Telephone: (901)
322-8181.

    Issued in Memphis, TN, on April 27, 2022.
Tommy L. Dupree,
Manager, Memphis Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2022-09568 Filed 5-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 128)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37778-37780]
[DOCID:fr02jy08-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2006-26110; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-112-AD;
Amendment 39-15585; AD 2008-13-22]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, and
747-400F Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes.
This AD requires replacement of an electronic flight instrument system/
engine indicating and crew alerting system (EFIS/EICAS) interface unit
(EIU) located on the E2-6 shelf of the main equipment center with a new
or modified EIU. This AD results from two instances where all six
integrated display units (IDUs) on the flight deck panels went blank in
flight. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of the IDUs due to
failure of all three EIUs, which could result in the inability of the
flightcrew to maintain safe flight and landing of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective August 6, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of August 6,
2008.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-
2207.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Yi, Aerospace Engineer, Systems
and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6494; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain
Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes. That
supplemental NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 23,
2007 (72 FR 48246). That supplemental NPRM proposed to require
replacement of an electronic flight instrument system/engine indicating
and crew alerting system (EFIS/EICAS) interface unit (EIU) located on
the E2-6 shelf of the main equipment center with a new or modified EIU.
We issued that supplemental NPRM to propose reducing the compliance
time for replacing the EIU.

Compliance With AD 2004-10-05, Amendment 39-13635

    We have determined that in order to comply with both this AD and
the EIU replacements required by paragraph (d)(1) of AD 2004-10-05, at
least one of the three EIUs must be part number (P/N) 622-8589-105 and
the other two EIUs may be either P/N 622-8589-104 or P/N 622-8589-105.
(The installation of P/N 622-8589-105 is required by paragraph (f) of
this AD, and the installation of P/N 622-8589-104 is required by
paragraph (d)(1) of AD 2004-10-05.) Boeing has confirmed that P/N 622-
8589-104 and P/N 622-8589-105 are fully interchangeable and may be used
in any combination. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (h) of this AD
accordingly. In addition, we have removed the information that appeared
in paragraph (b) of the supplemental NPRM and included it in paragraph
(h) of this AD. These changes are necessary to ensure that operators
are able to comply with both this AD and AD 2004-10-05, in light of the
parts availability constraint.

Comments

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

Support for the Supplemental NPRM

    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) supports reducing
the compliance time from 60 months to 24 months. The Association of
Asia Pacific Airlines (AAPA) supports the intent of the supplemental
NPRM.

Request To Extend the Compliance Time

    Boeing, Korean Air, Japan Airlines, United Airlines, and the AAPA
request that we extend the compliance time to 60 months for replacing
at least one EIU. As justification for extending the compliance time,
Boeing states that (1) the loss of primary displays has been
demonstrated and certified as not being a catastrophic condition, (2)
pilots are able to maintain continued safe flight and landing by using
backup or standby instruments as certified, and (3) mitigating action
has been provided with issuance of the Boeing 747-400 Flight Crew
Operations Maintenance Bulletin (OMB) TB1-20, ``Flight Deck Display
Unit Blanking Anomaly,'' dated February 25, 2003, to the Boeing 747
Flight Crew Operations Manual. Boeing further states that the EIU
manufacturer has advised that it has limited capacity to modify units,
which needs to be taken into consideration in the fleet modification
plan. Boeing also asserts that most operators will choose to modify all
three EIUs simultaneously to ease configuration control and logistics.
    AAPA states that its member airlines operate about 50 percent of
the affected airplanes worldwide, and that none of its members have
reported any blanking of all integrated display units (IDUs). AAPA
further states that many of its members have already planned to replace
all three EIUs, but that the 24-month compliance time will require them
to change their existing retrofit programs to meet the new timeline.
AAPA asserts this schedule change could involve removing airplanes from
revenue service before scheduled maintenance, thus affecting their
operational flexibility (capacity, manpower, and revenue generation).
AAPA also states that the capacity of the EIU manufacturer must be
considered at the global level, as many operators have already started
their replacement programs based on replacing all three EIUs within a
60-month compliance time.
    Korean Air states that the 24-month compliance time will impose an
excessive burden considering the parts availability constraint. United
Airlines and Japan Airlines state that replacing one EIU, instead of
all three EIUs, creates a risk that the requirements of the AD could be
inadvertently undone at a later time. They further state that replacing
all three EIUs, which can be done only within a 60-month compliance
time, will ensure that the

requirements of the AD cannot be undone.
    We do not agree to extend the compliance time for any of the stated
reasons. We also disagree with AAPA's assertion that none of its
members have experienced blanking of the IDUs; we have received a
report that one of its members experienced losing all IDUs on two Model
747-400 series airplanes. We have determined that a 24-month compliance
time is the longest acceptable compliance time for ensuring that an
acceptable level of safety is maintained, even with the mitigating
action mentioned by Boeing.
    While the loss of the primary displays, by itself, is not
catastrophic in the same sense as other types of failures such as a
major structural failure, it is still considered to be unsafe. When all
primary displays are lost, flightcrew access to critical flight
management information is denied and flightcrew workload could be
significantly increased. In addition to the primary displays of
airplane flight and navigation data, such information includes engine
monitoring, depiction of hazardous weather and terrain, flightcrew
warnings, fuel management, and other vital systems information. Access
to this information is critical to the flightcrew's ability to maintain
airplane control, positional awareness, and awareness of the airplane's
condition. Conversely, a simultaneous loss of all of this information
unacceptably degrades the flightcrew's ability to continue safe flight
and landing. We have taken AD action on other airplane models that also
experienced loss of the primary displays.
    We recognize that operators would prefer to replace all three EIUs
simultaneously for fleet management reasons, and that replacing only
one EIU involves more complicated maintenance planning. However,
operators' approved maintenance programs should provide sufficient
controls to minimize the risk of releasing airplanes for service in a
noncompliant condition. Further, the parts availability constraint will
prevent operators from replacing all three EIUs on all affected
airplanes within 24 months. The only course of action that likely can
be supported with adequate parts availability for a 24-month compliance
time is a requirement to replace one EIU. Although under the provisions
of paragraph (i) of this AD, we will consider requests for adjustments
to the compliance time if data are submitted to substantiate that such
an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have
revised paragraph (i) of this AD to specify the information that must
be submitted with the request.

Request To Require Replacement of All Three EIUs

    The NTSB reiterates its concern about requiring replacement of only
one EIU. The NTSB states that, despite the intended redundancy of three
EIUs, if only one EIU is replaced and that modified EIU suffers an
unrelated fault removing it from operation, an airplane is still
exposed to the potential for the IDUs to go blank since the other two
EIUs would not have the auto-restart capability. The NTSB urges that we
continue to work with the EIU manufacturer and operators to ensure that
all three EIUs are replaced with new or modified parts in a timely
manner.
    We infer the NTSB requests that we revise this AD to require
replacement of all three EIUs. Although we understand the NTSB's
concern, we do not agree to revise this AD. We have performed a risk
assessment of a modified EIU failing and have determined that the risk
of failure of the modified EIU is remote enough that an acceptable
level of safety is maintained by replacing only one EIU. Further, since
we have reduced the compliance time, there are only enough modification
kits available for all operators to replace one EIU per airplane within
the 24-month compliance time. Further, operators have already indicated
that, for fleet management reasons, they are likely to replace all
three EIUs as more parts become available. Also, the unsafe condition
has been further mitigated by the Boeing 747-400 Flight Crew OMB TB1-
20, ``Flight Deck Display Unit Blanking Anomaly.'' That document
advises flightcrews of the problem and provides instructions for
restarting the EIUs should there be a display blanking problem during
operation. We have not revised this AD in this regard.

Request To Revise Work-Hour Estimate

    AAPA states that the work-hour estimate in the supplemental NPRM is
without basis, and that time to remove, install, and test the EIU must
be included to accurately determine the time for performing the task.
Based on operator experience, AAPA asserts that the EIU modification,
replacement, and testing range between 6 to 40 hours per airplane.
    We disagree with revising the work hour estimate. The cost
information in an AD describes only the direct costs of the specific
actions required by this AD. Based on the best data available, the
manufacturer provided the number of work hours necessary to do the
required actions. This number represents the time necessary to perform
only the actions actually required by this AD. We recognize that, in
doing the actions required by an AD, operators might incur incidental
costs in addition to the direct costs. The cost analysis in AD
rulemaking actions, however, typically does not include incidental
costs such as the time required to gain access and close up, time
necessary for planning, or time necessitated by other administrative
actions. Those incidental costs, which might vary significantly among
operators, are almost impossible to calculate. Therefore, we have not
revised this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comments received, and determined that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD as proposed in the supplemental NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 639 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 79 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The required actions take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average
labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts cost about $2,840 per
airplane (for one EIU). Based on these figures, the estimated cost of
this AD for U.S. operators is $230,680, or $2,920 per airplane.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2008-13-22 Boeing: Amendment 39-15585. Docket No. FAA-2006-26110;
Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-112-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective August 6, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-
400F series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified
in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-31-2368, Revision 1, dated July 24,
2006.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from two instances where all six integrated
display units (IDUs) on the flight deck panels went blank in flight.
We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of the IDUs due to failure of
all three electronic flight instrument system/engine indicating and
crew alerting system (EFIS/EICAS) interface units (EIUs), which
could result in the inability of the flightcrew to maintain safe
flight and landing of the airplane.

Compliance

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

Replacement

    (f) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD,
replace at least one of the three EIUs, part number (P/N) 622-8589-
104, located on the E2-6 shelf of the main equipment center with a
new or modified EIU, P/N 622-8589-105, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-31-2368,
Revision 1, dated July 24, 2006.

    Note 1: Boeing Service Bulletin 747-31-2368, Revision 1, dated
July 24, 2006, refers to Rockwell Collins Service Bulletin EIU-7000-
31-502, dated March 21, 2006, as an additional source of service
information for modifying an EIU by adding auto restart circuitry,
which converts EIU P/N 622-8589-104 to P/N 622-8589-105.

Credit for Actions Done According to Previous Service Bulletin

    (g) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-31-2368, dated November
22, 2005 (Revision 1 of the service bulletin specifies that the
original issue is dated December 1, 2005), are acceptable for
compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraph (f) of
this AD.

Terminating Action for AD 2004-10-05, Amendment 39-13635

    (h) Replacing an EIU with a new or modified EIU in accordance
with paragraph (f) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the
EIU replacement of paragraph (d)(1) of AD 2004-10-05, provided that
the other two EIUs are replaced with EIUs having P/N 622-8589-104 or
P/N 622-8589-105. All other actions required by paragraph (d)(1) of
AD 2004-10-05 must be complied with.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
We will only grant a compliance time extension for this AD if the
requestor can show that it is unable to accomplish the minimum
requirements of the AD (i.e., one modified EIU for each airplane) by
the compliance time for reasons beyond its control, such as the
inability to obtain enough parts to comply with the minimum
requirements of the AD by the compliance time. Therefore, requests
to extend the compliance time for this AD must include the following
information:
    (i) How many airplanes are included in the request,
    (ii) An inventory of how many modified EIUs the requestor
currently has on hand,
    (iii) A forecast inventory showing that the requestor will not
have enough modified EIUs available to accomplish the minimum AD
requirements (i.e., one modified EIU for each airplane) by the AD
compliance time, based upon the current inventory on hand and
delivery rates from the parts supplier,
    (iv) Documentation of supplier delivery commitments for modified
EIUs or conversion kits, as applicable, including firm delivery
commitment dates, that will provide the requestor with an adequate
number of parts to be able to accomplish the minimum AD requirements
on its affected airplanes, and
    (v) Documentation of maintenance facility schedule availability
for accomplishing the AD requirements on all airplanes included in
the request. We will not approve AMOC requests that propose
replacing or modifying all three EIUs in a time frame longer than 24
months instead of replacing or modifying one EIU within 24 months.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 747-31-2368, Revision
1, dated July 24, 2006, to do the actions required by this AD,
unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington
98124-2207.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or 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 June 8, 2008.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-14188 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P