[Federal Register: September 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 176)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52597-52603]
[DOCID:fr10se08-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0940; FRL-8379-9]

 Fludioxonil; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
fludioxonil in or on avocado; canistel; citrus, oil; mango; papaya;
sapodilla; sapote, black; sapote, mamey; star apple; tomatillo; tomato;
vegetable, cucurbit, crop group 9; vegetable, leaves of root and tuber,
crop group 2; vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B; and
vegetable, tuberous and corm, except potato, subgroup 1D. The
Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) on
behalf of the registrant, Syngenta Crop Protection, Greensboro, NC
27409.

DATES: This regulation is effective September 10, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 10, 2008,
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: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0940. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced
Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,
if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr.,
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney Jackson, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail 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.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://
www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a
frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at
40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR
site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 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-2007-0940 in the
subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be
in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk as
required by 40 CFR part 178 on or before November 10, 2008.
    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 that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0940, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of October 24, 2007 (72 FR 60369) (FRL-
8150-8), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
7E7234) by the Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), IR-4
Project Headquarters, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ
08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.516 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide fludioxonil, 4-
(2,2-difluoro-1,3-benzodioxol-4-yl)-1H-pyrrole-3-carbonitrile, in or on
tomato at 0.4 parts per million (ppm); tomatillo at 0.4 ppm; tomato,
paste at 1.0 ppm; avocado at 0.45 ppm; black sapote at 0.45 ppm;
canistel at 0.45 ppm; mamey sapote at 0.45 ppm; mango at 0.45 ppm;
papaya at 0.45 ppm; sapodilla at 0.45 ppm; star apple at 0.45 ppm;
herb, subgroup 19A, fresh at 13 ppm; herb, subgroup19A, dried at 55
ppm; leaves of root and tuber vegetables at 40 ppm; root vegetables,
except sugar beet, subgroup at 0.5 ppm; lemon at 0.25 ppm; lime at 0.25
ppm; cucurbits at 0.6 ppm; and tuberous and corm vegetables, except
potato subgroup at 4.0 ppm. Additionally, IR-4 proposed that upon
establishment of the above new tolerances, 40 CFR 180.516 be amended by
removing the established tolerances for fludioxonil in or on the food
commodities; herb, subgroup 19A, fresh at 10 ppm; herb, subgroup 19A,
dried at 65 ppm; carrot at 0.75 ppm; and turnip, greens at 10 ppm. That
notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop
Protection, Greensboro, NC 27409, the registrant, which is available to
the public in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA made
changes or modifications to some of the proposed tolerances and/or
commodity listings as detailed in this document--Unit IV.C. Revisions
to Petitioned-For Tolerances.

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 section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, 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 the petitioned-for
tolerances for residues of fludioxonil in or on tomato at 0.4 ppm;
tomatillo at 0.4 ppm; tomato, paste at 1.0 ppm; avocado at 0.45 ppm;
black sapote at 0.45 ppm; canistel at 0.45 ppm; mamey sapote at 0.45
ppm; mango at 0.45 ppm; papaya at 0.45 ppm; sapodilla at 0.45 ppm; star
apple at 0.45 ppm; herb, subgroup 19A, fresh at 13 ppm; herb,
subgroup19A, dried at 55 ppm; leaves of root and tuber vegetables at 40
ppm; root vegetables, except sugar beet subgroup at 0.5 ppm; lemon at
0.25 ppm; lime at 0.25 ppm; cucurbits at 0.6 ppm; and tuberous and corm
vegetables, except potato subgroup at 4.0 ppm. EPA's assessment of
exposures and risks associated with establishing tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
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.
    Fludioxonil is of low acute toxicity and is not a dermal
sensitizer. For subchronic and chronic toxicity, the primary effects in
the mouse and rat were similar and included decreased body weight and
food consumption associated with clinical pathological and
histopathological effects in the liver and kidney. In the subchronic
dog study, diarrhea was the most sensitive indicator of toxicity. In
contrast, decreased weight gain in females was the most sensitive
indicator of toxicity in the chronic toxicity study in dogs. Liver
toxicity was observed in both dog studies at higher doses. The
available data did not indicate a need for acute or subchronic
neurotoxicity studies. Fludioxonil was not teratogenic in rabbits. In a
rat developmental toxicity study, it caused an increase in fetal
incidence and litter incidence of dilated renal pelvis at the limit
dose (1,000 mg/kg/day). There was no quantitative or qualitative
evidence of increased susceptibility following in utero exposure to
rats and rabbits or following pre-/post-natal exposure to rats.
    EPA determined that fludioxonil was not classifiable as to human
carcinogenicity but nonetheless poses a negligible cancer risk. This
conclusion was based on the fact that cancer studies with fludioxonil
only showed marginal evidence of cancer in one sex of the species.
There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in mice when tested up to the
limited dose 7,000 ppm. There

was no evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats, but there was a
statistically significant increase, both trend and pairwise, of
combined hepatocellular tumors in female rats. The pairwise increase
for combined tumors was significant at p=0.03, which is not a strong
indication of a positive effect. Further, statistical significance was
only found when liver adenomas were combined with liver carcinomas.
Finally, the increase in these tumors was within, but at the high end,
of the historical controls. Fludioxonil was not mutagenic in the tests
for gene mutations. However, based on the induction of polyploidy in
the in vitro Chinese hamster ovary cell cytogenetic assay and the
suggestive evidence of micronuclei induction in rat hepatocytes in
vivo, additional mutagenicity testing was performed in three studies
specifically designed to address the concerns regarding aneuploidy. The
results of these assays were negative for aneuploidy activity.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by fludioxonil as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in document Fludioxonil. Human Health Risk
Assessment for Section 3 Tolerances on Avocado......and Brassica
Vegetables, dated July 10, 2008 at page 20 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OPP-2007-0940-003.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no
adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a
NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-, intermediate-
, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing food, water, and
residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the margin of exposure
(MOE) called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
This latter value is referred to as the Level of Concern (LOC).
    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
greater than that 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 fludioxonil used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
document Fludioxonil. Human Health Risk Assessment for Section 3
Tolerances on Avocado......and Brassica Vegetables, dated July 10, at
page 20 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0940-0003.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fludioxonil, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing fludioxonil tolerances in 40 CFR
180.516. EPA assessed dietary exposures from fludioxonil 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.
    In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used the Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database
(DEEM-FCIDTM, Version 2.03), which incorporates food
consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of
Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food,
acute dietary exposure analysis is based on tolerance-level residues.
EPA assumed that 100% of the crops with fludioxonil tolerances are
treated. The only population subgroup that is relevant for this acute
assessment is females of child-bearing age (i.e., females 13 to 49
years old).
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary (food +
water) exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the
USDA 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide CSFII. As to residue levels in food,
the chronic dietary exposure analyses assumed tolerance-level residues
for most commodities with existing and proposed tolerances. Anticipated
residues (AR) values were determined for apple, grapefruit, lemon,
lime, pear, orange and orange juices using average residues from field
trials and processing factors from processing studies. Processing
factors were set to 1X for all relevant processed commodities. DEEM-
FCID default processing factors were used for all other processed
commodities. The population subgroup of highest exposure is children
1to 2 years old. The Agency assumed 100% of crops with fludioxonil
tolerances are treated.
    iii. Cancer. As explained above, EPA determined that fludioxonil
was not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity. Therefore, no
assessment of exposure for the purpose of estimating cancer risk is
necessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes
EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue
levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide
residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such
information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that
data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified,
or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above
the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such
data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and
authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be
submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these
tolerances.
    Anticipated residue data were used in the chronic (non-cancer)
dietary risk analyses but not in the acute dietary risk analysis. For
certain proposed tolerance crops, the anticipated residues values were
determined from the field trial studies. Additionally, results of
processed commodities studies show that fludioxinil residues do not
concentrate to the extent that the existing crop tolerance would be
exceeded.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for fludioxonil in drinking water. These

simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and
fate/transport characteristics of fludioxonil. 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.
    The maximum application rates for the new uses are less than the
application rate for turfgrass. Therefore, the values for turfgrass
(worst case) were used in the human health risk assessment. Tier 1
drinking water assessment for fludioxonil on turfgrass is based on the
label application rate for turfgrass, which is used in this current
assessment, and is three applications of 0.67 lb active ingredient/Acre
(ai/A) applied using 14-day intervals, for a total application rate of
2 lb ai/A/year.
    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST and
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of fludioxonil for
acute and chronic (non-cancer) exposures. EDWCs were modeled based on
the use site with the highest application rate; i.e., spray/foliar
applications to turfgrass of 2.0 lbs ai/A/yr. For acute exposure, EDWCs
are estimated to be 81.3 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and
0.20 ppb for ground water. The EDWCs for chronic exposures for non-
cancer assessments are estimated to be 37.4 ppb for surface water and
0.20 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 81.3 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 37.4 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).
    Fludioxonil is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: turfgrass and ornamentals. EPA
assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: The
current petition for fludioxonil results in no residential/non-
occupational exposures. Since the product registered for residential
uses, Medallion[reg] (EPA Reg. No. 100-769), is restricted
for residential uses to commercial applicators-only, and since the
Agency did not identify short- or intermediate-term dermal endpoints,
only a toddler post-application assessment for incidental ingestion
exposures to treated lawns was included.
    The combined short-term oral exposure risk estimate, which includes
hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth and soil ingestion pathways, was
previously determined to be 0.013 milligrams/kilogram of bodyweight/day
(mg/kg bw/day), while the intermediate-term was determined to be 0.0074
mg/kg bw/day. It should be noted that each of the incidental oral
assessments (i.e., hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth and soil ingestion)
are considered conservative. Therefore, combining all the assessments
is expected to provide a highly conservative assessment of children's
incidental oral 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.''
    EPA has not found fludioxonil to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and fludioxonil does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
fludioxonil 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 website at http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(c) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety
factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no quantitative or
qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility following in utero
exposure to rats and rabbits or following prenatal/postnatal exposure
to rats. In the rat developmental study, there was an increase in the
number of fetuses and litters with dilated renal pelvis and dilated
ureter. This finding was considered to be related to maternal toxicity
rather than an indication of increased susceptibility. Therefore, it is
concluded that there is no evidence of increased susceptibility in the
developmental toxicity study in the rat. In the rabbit developmental
study, no developmental toxicity was seen up to the highest dose
tested. Materal toxicity was demonstrated at that dose. In the 2-
generation rat reproduction study, offspring toxicity was seen at the
dose that produced parental toxicity. The parental toxicity was
manifested as increased clinical signs, decreased body weight, body
weight gain and food consumption. Offspring toxicity was manifested as
decreased weight gain in pups. Since parental and offspring toxicity
were comparable, it was concluded that there is no increased
susceptibility in the 2-generation reproduction study.
    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. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for fludioxonil is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that fludioxonil is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that fludioxonil 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.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues or residues from crop field
trials. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground
and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to fludioxonil in
drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess
postapplication exposure of children as well as incidental oral
exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the
exposure and risks posed by fludioxonil.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE called for
by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account exposure estimates from acute dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single-oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected for the
general population including infants and children. Therefore,
fludioxonil is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute
exposure for females 13 to 49 years old, the acute dietary exposure
from food and water to fludioxonil will occupy 14% of the aPAD for
(females 13 to 49 years old) the population group receiving the
greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
fludioxonil from food and water will utilize 89% of the cPAD for
(children 1 to 2 years old) the population group receiving the greatest
exposure.
    Based on the discussions above regarding residential use patterns,
chronic residential exposure to residues of fludioxonil is not
expected. The chronic aggregate risk does not exceed the Agency's level
of concern.
    3. Short-term risk. In aggregating short-term risk, EPA considers
background chronic dietary exposure (food + water) and short-term,
residential non-dietary oral and dermal exposures. Fludioxonil is
restricted to commercial handlers. Therefore, the only non-occupational
exposure expected to result from the residential uses of fludioxonil is
post-application exposure. For adults, post-application exposures may
result from dermal contact with treated turf. For toddlers, dermal and
non-dietary oral post-application exposures may result from dermal
contact with treated turf as well as hand-to-mouth transfer of residues
from turfgrass. However, the Agency did not identify short-term dermal
endpoints for fludioxonil. Therefore, the short-term aggregate risk for
fludioxonil considers food, water, and residential non-dietary oral
exposures (for toddlers).
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs of 250
for children (1 to 2 years old) and 280 for children (3 to 5 years old)
for short-term scenario. These values are well above the Agency's level
of concern of an aggregate MOE level of below 100.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. In aggregating intermediate-term risk,
the Agency considers background chronic dietary exposure (food + water)
and intermediate-term, residential non-dietary oral and dermal
exposures. Based on the residential use pattern, there is a
possibility, although unlikely, that a toddler may experience
intermediate-term exposures to fludioxonil residues on treated lawns.
As with the short-term aggregate assessment, only non-dietary exposures
are included. Therefore, the intermediate-term aggregate risk for
fludioxonil considers food, water, and residential non-dietary oral
exposures (for toddlers).
    All intermediate-term aggregate risk estimates result in MOEs
greater than 100, with the exception that the MOE for children 1 to 2
years old is 98, just below 100. Due to the conservative nature of the
dietary exposure assessment (assumes 100% of crops with tolerances are
treated and most crops have residues at the tolerance-level and the
fact that dietary exposure is 78 percent of the aggregate exposure),
EPA does not have any concern for the purposes of this action.
Intermediate-term aggregate exposure to fludioxonil, as a result of all
registered and proposed uses, is below EPA's level of concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Fludioxonil poses a
negligible cancer risk. Cancer studies with fludioxonil only showed
marginal evidence of cancer in one sex of one species. There was no
evidence of carcinogenicity in mice when tested up to the limited dose
7,000 ppm. There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats, but
there was a statistically significant increase, both trend and
pairwise, of combined hepatocellular tumors in female rats. The
pairwise increase for combined tumors was significant at p=0.03, which
is not a strong indication of a positive effect. Further, statistical
significance was only found when liver adenomas were combined with
liver carcinomas. Finally, the increase in these tumors was within, but
at the high end, of the historical controls.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to fludioxonil residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology, High Performance Liquid
Chromatography is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The
method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch,
Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    There are no Canadian or Mexican Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for
residues of fludioxonil. There are Codex limits on tomato (higher than
the U.S. limit; 0.5 ppm vs 0.40 ppm, proposed), herbs (equal to or
lower than the U.S. limit), cucurbits (lower than the U.S. limit), and
carrot (lower than the U.S. limit). Except for tomato, the Codex MRLs
are not a restriction on items for which there is a significant import
trade. Since having the U.S. tolerance lower than the Codex MRL would
cause a barrier to tomato imports, the tomato and tomatillo tolerances
were raised from 0.40 ppm to 0.50 ppm.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The Agency modified/amended certain tolerances as proposed by the
registrant and/or indicated by available supporting data, as follows:
    i. Proposed new tolerances for herb subgroup 19A, fresh at 13 ppm
and herb subgroup 19A, dried at 55 ppm were rejected by EPA and
existing tolerances at 10 ppm and 60 ppm, respectively, were retained.
The petitioner requested that the existing data for fresh and dry basil
and chive be combined with the submitted parsley data and used in
support of the requested tolerances on the herb subgroup 19A, fresh and
dried at 13 ppm and 55 ppm, respectively. There are adequate residue
field trials to support a tolerance on parsley, fresh and dried. The
analytical results show

that fludioxonil residues were 3.87 ppm in fresh parsley and 22.29 ppm
in dried parsley. It is EPA policy to analyze each crop in a group
separately and establish the group tolerance using the highest of the
individual analyses. Since there are existing tolerances for herb
subgroup 19A, fresh and dried at 10 ppm and 65 ppm, respectively, and
the data from the parsley residue field trials do not exceed those
established tolerances using the same treatment pattern, no change in
the group tolerance is required.
    ii. Proposed tolerances for lime at 0.25 ppm; and lemon at 0.25 ppm
were determined to be unnecessary due to the existing tolerance on
fruit, citrus, group 10 at 10 ppm and the citrus, oil tolerance at 500
ppm established by this regulation.
    iii. Proposed tolerances for tomato at 0.40 and tomatillo at 0.40
were both raised to 0.50 ppm to address international harmonization
issues. Proposed tolerances for tomato paste at 1.0 ppm is not needed.
Results of processed commodities studies show that fludioxonil residues
do not appreciably concentrate, and
    iv. Certain commodity definitions in the petition were corrected or
revised to comply with EPA's Pesticide Tolerance Crop Grouping Program
outlined in the Federal Register of December 7, 2007, 72 FR 69150

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of the fungicide
fludioxonil, 4-(2,2-difluoro-1,3-benzodioxol-4-yl)-1H-pyrrole-3-
carbonitrile, in or on avocado at 0.45 ppm, canistel at 0.45 ppm,
citrus, oil at 500 ppm, mango at 0.45 ppm, papaya at 0.45 ppm,
sapodilla at 0.45 ppm, sapote, black at 0.45 ppm, sapote, mamey at 0.45
ppm, star apple at 0.45 ppm, tomatillo at 0.50 ppm, tomato at 0.50 ppm,
vegetable, cucurbit, crop group 9 at 0.45 ppm, vegetable, leaves of
root and tuber, crop group 2 at 30 ppm, vegetable, root, except sugar
beet, subgroup 1B at 0.75 ppm, and vegetable, tuberous and corm, except
potato, subgroup 1D at 3.5 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA 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, 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 section 408(d) of FFDCA, 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 section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. 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) (Public Law 104-4).
    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), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. 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 this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: August 25, 2008.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
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.  180.516 the table to paragraph (a) is amended by removing
the entries for ``carrot;'' ``grapefruit oil'' and ``leaves and roots
of tuber vegetables,'' and by alphabetically adding the following
commodities, except for ``vegetable, cucurbit, group 9,'' which is
revised. The added and revised entries read as follows:

Sec.  180.516   Fludioxonil; tolerance for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Avocado......................................................       0.45
                                * * * * *
Canistel.....................................................       0.45
                                * * * * *
Citrus, oil..................................................        500
                                * * * * *
Mango........................................................       0.45
                                * * * * *
Papaya.......................................................       0.45
                                * * * * *
Sapodilla....................................................       0.45
Sapote, black................................................       0.45
Sapote, mamey................................................       0.45
                                * * * * *
Star apple...................................................       0.45
                                * * * * *
Tomatillo....................................................       0.50
Tomato.......................................................       0.50
                                * * * * *
Vegetable, cucurbit, crop group 9............................       0.45

                                * * * * *
Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, crop group 2............         30
Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B..............       0.75
                                * * * * *
Vegetable, tuberous and corn, except potato, subgroup 1D.....        3.5
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. E8-20547 Filed 9-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83401-83402]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26245]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC24-20-000.
    Applicants: DCR Transmission, L.L.C.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act of DCR Transmission, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 11/21/23.
    Accession Number: 20231121-5230.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/23.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER15-632-012; ER15-634-012; ER19-2287-003; ER14-
2939-010; ER15-2728-012; ER19-2294-003; ER16-711-009; ER14-2466-013;
ER14-2465-013; ER19-2305-003.
    Applicants: Valencia Power, LLC, RE Columbia Two LLC, Database
returns error. There is a problem with archive data and system. Contact
Administrator., Pio Pico Energy Center, LLC, Mesquite Power, LLC,
Maricopa West Solar PV, LLC, Imperial Valley Solar Company (IVSC) 2,
LLC, Goal Line L.P., Cottonwood Solar, LLC, CID Solar, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to January 3, 2022, Triennial Market Power
Analysis for Southwest Region of CID Solar, LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 11/20/23.
    Accession Number: 20231120-5234.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/11/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1471-014; ER13-291-004; ER15-1672-013; ER16-
2010-008; ER14-1468-015; ER10-2201-005.
    Applicants: Marina Energy, LLC, KMC Thermo, LLC, Hancock Wind, LLC,
Evergreen Wind Power II, LLC, EnergyMark, LLC, Blue Sky West, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to June 30, 2023, Triennial Market Power
Analysis for Northeast Region of Marina Energy, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 11/20/23.
    Accession Number: 20231120-5220.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/11/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1794-005.
    Applicants: Innovative Solar 42, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to May 2, 2022, Notice of Change in Status
of Innovative Solar 42, LLC under ER17-1794.
    Filed Date: 11/20/23.
    Accession Number: 20231120-5223.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/11/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-59-005; ER15-1471-013; ER10-1946-017; ER15-
632-015; ER16-915-007; ER15-634-015; ER13-291-003; ER15-1672-012; ER20-
422-004; ER20-58-004; ER10-2861-012; ER20-57-004; ER19-2287-005; ER16-
2520-006; ER16-612-002; ER16-2010-007; ER14-2939-013; ER14-1468-014;
ER18-97-004; ER10-1874-016; ER19-9-010; ER15-2728-015; ER10-2201-004;
ER19-2294-005; ER14-2140-014; ER12-1308-015; ER15-1952-014; ER16-711-
011; ER14-2466-016; ER14-2465-016; ER14-2141-014; ER16-2561-007; ER13-
1504-013; ER19-8-006; ER17-318-006; ER20-339-004; ER19-2305-005; ER10-
2721-014.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company, Valencia Power, LLC, Twiggs
County Solar, LLC, Three Peaks Power, LLC, Sweetwater Solar, LLC, SWG
Arapahoe, LLC, Sunflower Wind Project, LLC, Selmer Farm, LLC, RE
Columbia Two LLC, RE Camelot LLC, Pio Pico Energy Center, LLC, Pavant
Solar LLC, Palouse Wind, LLC, Mulberry Farm, LLC, Mesquite Power, LLC,
Marina Energy, LLC, Maricopa West Solar PV, LLC, Mankato Energy Center
II, LLC, Mankato Energy Center, LLC, MS Solar 3, LLC, KMC Thermo, LLC,
Imperial Valley Solar Company (IVSC) 2, LLC, Hancock Wind, LLC, Greeley
Energy Facility, LLC, Grand View PV Solar Two LLC, Goal Line L.P., GA
Solar 3, LLC, Fountain Valley Power, L.L.C., FL Solar 4, LLC, FL Solar
1, LLC, Evergreen Wind Power II, LLC, EnergyMark, LLC, Cottonwood
Solar, LLC, Comanche Solar PV, LLC, CID Solar, LLC, Broad River Energy
LLC, Blue Sky West, LLC, AZ Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to May 1, 2023, Notice of Non-Material
Change in Status of AZ Solar 1, LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 11/20/23.
    Accession Number: 20231120-5231.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/11/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1955-001.
    Applicants: Earthrise Lincoln Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing Reflecting Actual
Effective Date of Tariff Records to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 11/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20231122-5083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1957-001.
    Applicants: Earthrise Gibson City Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing Reflecting Actual
Effective Date of Tariff Records to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 11/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20231122-5080.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1959-001.
    Applicants: Earthrise Crete Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing Reflecting Actual
Effective Date of Tariff Records to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 11/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20231122-5077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2015-001.
    Applicants: Crete Energy Venture, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing Reflecting Actual
Effective Date of Tariff Records to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 11/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20231122-5074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2016-001.
    Applicants: Lincoln Generating Facility, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing Reflecting Actual
Effective Date of Tariff Records to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 11/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20231122-5085.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2017-001.
    Applicants: Gibson City Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing Reflecting Actual
Effective Date of Tariff Records to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 11/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20231122-5082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2374-003.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment of Response to
Commission's 9/1/23 Deficiency Letter in ER23-2347 to be effective 9/
11/2023.
    Filed Date: 11/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20231122-5111.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2449-002.
    Applicants: Lyons Solar, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Response to Deficiency Letter to be
effective 10/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 11/22/23.

    Accession Number: 20231122-5119.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2713-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Response to Commission's 10/26/23
Deficiency Letter in ER23-2713 to be effective 7/27/2023.
    Filed Date: 11/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20231122-5095.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2764-001.
    Applicants: Northeastern Power & Gas, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to 1--Deficiency filing to
be effective 9/25/2023.
    Filed Date: 11/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20231122-5087.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2935-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
Northern Indiana Public Service Company LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Midcontinent Independent System
Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.17(b): 2023-11-22_Amendment
NIPSCO Request for Depreciation Rates to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 11/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20231122-5092.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-463-000.
    Applicants: Elektron Solar, LLC.
    Description: 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff
Filing to be effective 1/21/2024.
    Filed Date: 11/21/23.
    Accession Number: 20231121-5163.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-464-000.
    Applicants: Horseshoe Solar, LLC.
    Description: 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff
Filing to be effective 1/21/2024.
    Filed Date: 11/21/23.
    Accession Number: 20231121-5166.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-465-000.
    Applicants: Nestlewood Solar I LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Reactive Power Tariff
Application to be effective 12/27/2023.
    Filed Date: 11/21/23.
    Accession Number: 20231121-5170.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-466-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: 205(d) Rate Filing: Original NSA, Service Agreement
No. 7140; Queue No. U2-073/Z2-103/AB2-038 to be effective 1/22/2024.
    Filed Date: 11/21/23.
    Accession Number: 20231121-5203.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-467-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: 205(d) Rate Filing: 3984 Cowskin Solar Energy GIA
Cancellation to be effective 8/9/2023.
    Filed Date: 11/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20231122-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-468-000.
    Applicants: Black Walnut Energy Storage, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Black Walnut Energy Storage,
LLC Co-Tenancy and Shared Facilities Agreement to be effective 11/23/
2023.
    Filed Date: 11/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20231122-5052.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-469-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: 205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule No. 245, Amendment
No. 1 to be effective 1/22/2024.
    Filed Date: 11/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20231122-5056.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-470-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 205(d) Rate Filing: 2023-11-22_SA 3413 Ameren IL-Cass
County Solar Project 3rd Rev GIA (J859) to be effective 11/13/2023.
    Filed Date: 11/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20231122-5059.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-471-000.
    Applicants: Indra Power Business OH LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: 2023-11-22 Indra Power
Business OH LLC Market-Based Rate Application Filing to be effective 1/
22/2024.
    Filed Date: 11/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20231122-5081.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-472-000.
    Applicants: NextEra Energy Transmission MidAtlantic Indiana, Inc.,
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: 205(d) Rate Filing: NextEra Energy Transmission
MidAtlantic Indiana, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii:
NextEra Energy MidAtlantic Indiana, Inc. Request for Rate Incentive
Treatment to be effective 1/22/2024.
    Filed Date: 11/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20231122-5112.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/13/.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-473-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: 205(d) Rate Filing: Original NSA, Service Agreement
No. 7141; Queue No. AG1-045 to be effective 1/22/2024.
    Filed Date: 11/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20231122-5133.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-474-000.
    Applicants: Hardin Solar Energy II LLC
    Description: Initial rate filing: Filing of Shared Facilities
Agreement to be effective 1/22/2024.
    Filed Date: 11/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20231122-5164.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/13/23.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the
specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is
necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: November 22, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-26245 Filed 11-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 165 (Tuesday, August 26, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50863-50867]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20262]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0584; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-092-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-09-
05, for certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, and
Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. AD 2014-09-05 currently
requires repetitive inspections of certain sidestay upper cardan pins
of the main landing gear (MLG), and associated nuts and retainer
assemblies, and pin replacement if necessary. Since we issued AD 2014-
09-05, we have determined that a previously optional measurement is
necessary to address the identified unsafe condition. We are proposing
this AD to detect and correct migration of the sidestay upper cardan
pin, which could result in disconnection of the sidestay upper arm from
the airplane structure, and could result in a landing gear collapse and
consequent damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 10,
2014.

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 W12-140, 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 proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS--Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0584; 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 proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0584;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-092-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on 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 proposed AD.

Discussion

    On April 16, 2014, we issued AD 2014-09-05, Amendment 39-17840 (79
FR 23909, April 29, 2014). AD 2014-09-05 requires actions intended to
address an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300
series airplanes, and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes.
    Since we issued AD 2014-09-05, Amendment 39-17840 (79 FR 23909,
April 29, 2014), we have determined that the optional measurement
specified in that AD is necessary to address the identified unsafe
condition.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2014-0066, corrected March 20, 2014 (referred
to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model
A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-200 and -300 series
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    An A330 aeroplane equipped with Basic (main landing gear) MLG
was rolling out after landing when it experienced a nose wheel
steering fault (unrelated to the safety subject addressed by this
[EASA] AD), which resulted in the crew stopping the aeroplane on the
taxiway after vacating the runway.
    The subsequent investigation revealed that the right-hand MLG
sidestay upper cardan pin had migrated out of position. The sidestay
upper cardan nut and retainer were found in the landing gear bay
detached from the upper cardan pin. The nut and the retainer were
still bolted together.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to a
complete migration of the sidestay upper cardan pin and a
disconnection of the sidestay upper arm from the aeroplane
structure, possibly resulting in MLG collapse with consequent damage
to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
    To address this potential condition, Airbus published Alert
Operators Transmission (AOT) A32L003-14, providing inspection
instructions.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
accomplishment of repetitive [detailed inspections for visible
chrome] of the MLG upper cardan pin, nut and retainer [and pin
replacement if necessary]. This [EASA] AD also requires
accomplishment of a gap check between wing rear spar fitting lugs
and the bush flanges [and corrective actions if necessary.
Corrective actions include repair or replacement of the cardan pin
assembly].

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0584.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

``Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in This Proposed AD

    Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD.
    The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often
directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective
actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph
allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the
manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the
paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design
Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
    In an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR
78285, December 26, 2013), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs
that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition,
by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design
Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to the FAA AD. This
change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide
operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically
developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we
proposed to change the phrase ``its delegated agent'' to include a
design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design
organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH
authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD.
    One commenter to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) stated the following: ``The
proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the
interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor
deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD
mandated Airbus service bulletin.''
    This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to
allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer
as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated
action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or
other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-
required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request
the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required
actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled
it ``Contacting the

Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement
in this proposed AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer,
the actions must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA,
the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or Airbus's EASA DOA.
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-
approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.
    We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either
the ``delegated agent'' or ``design approval holder (DAH) with State of
Design Authority design organization approval,'' but instead we have
provided the specific delegation approval granted by the State of
Design Authority for the DAH throughout this proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 83 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 2014-09-05, Amendment 39-17840
(79 FR 23909, April 29, 2014), and retained in this proposed AD take
about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per
work-hour. Required parts cost $0 per product. Based on these figures,
the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2014-09-05 is
$85 per product.
    We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $7,055, or $85 per
product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 4 work-hours and require parts costing $7,530, for a cost of
$7,870 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these actions.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in
the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for
reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with
this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden
and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA
at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information
Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed
regulation:
    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);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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. Amend Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-09-
05, Amendment 39-17840 (79 FR 23909, April 29, 2014), and adding the
following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2014-0584; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-
092-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 10, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2014-09-05, Amendment 39-17840 (79 FR 23909,
April 29, 2014).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1)
and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
    (1) Airbus Model A330-201, A330-202, A330-203, A330-223, A330-
243, A330-301, A330-302, A330-303, A330-321, A330-322, A330-323,
A330-341, A330-342, and A330-343 airplanes, all manufacturer serial
numbers (MSNs), equipped with basic (201252 series) main landing
gear (MLG), or growth (201490 series) MLG.

    (2) Airbus Model A340-211, A340-212, A340-213, A340-311, A340-
312, and A340-313 airplanes, all MSNs, equipped with basic (201252
series) MLG or growth (201490 series) MLG.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
Gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a sidestay upper cardan pin
of the MLG migrating out of position. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct migration of the sidestay upper cardan pin, which
could result in disconnection of the sidestay upper arm from the
airplane structure, and which could result in a landing gear
collapse and consequent damage to the airplane and injury to
occupants.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Repetitive Detailed Inspections With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2014-09-05, Amendment 39-17840 (79 FR 23909, April 29, 2014), with
no changes.
    (1) For airplanes identified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and
(g)(1)(ii) of this AD on which the affected MLG has exceeded 8 years
since first overhaul, as of May 14, 2014 (the effective date of AD
2014-09-05, Amendment 39-17840 (79 FR 23909, April 29, 2014), except
those MLG that have had a second overhaul: Within 30 days after May
14, 2014, accomplish a detailed inspection for visible chrome of
each affected MLG sidestay upper cardan pin, and associated nut and
retainer assembly, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus
Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A32L003-14, dated March 10, 2014,
including Appendices 1, 2, and 3 (the issue date is not specified on
the appendices).
    (i) Airplanes equipped with any MLG sidestay upper cardan pin
subassembly part number (P/N) 201267202 (on 201252 series MLG).
    (ii) Airplanes equipped with any MLG sidestay upper cardan pin
subassembly P/N 201483202 (on 201490 series MLG).
    (2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of
this AD, no pin chrome is visible inboard of the wing rear spar
fitting lug, repeat the detailed inspection for visible chrome
specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 10 days.
    (3) If, during any inspection required by paragraphs (g)(1) or
(g)(2) of this AD, pin chrome is visible inboard of the wing rear
spar fitting lug, before further flight, replace the affected cardan
pin assembly, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus AOT
A32L003-14, dated March 10, 2014, including Appendices 1, 2, and 3
(the issue date is not specified on the appendices). Replacement of
the affected cardan pin assembly terminates the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: MLG sidestay upper cardan
pin subassembly P/N 201267202 (found in Airbus Illustrated Parts
Catalogue (IPC) as item 32-11-18-01) includes the cardan pin P/N
201267600. MLG sidestay upper cardan pin subassembly P/N 201483202
(found in Airbus IPC as item 32-11-18-01) includes the cardan pin P/
N 201483600.

(h) New Terminating Action--Gap Check

    Within 4 months after the effective date of this AD: Measure the
cardan pin clearance dimensions (gap check) and do the applicable
corrective action specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this
AD. Measuring the gap check and doing the applicable corrective
action specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, as
applicable, terminates the repetitive inspections required by
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD for that sidestay upper
cardan pin, nut, and retainer only. The measurement must be done in
accordance with Airbus AOT A32L003-14, dated March 10, 2014,
including Appendices 1, 2, and 3 (the issue date is not specified on
the appendices).
    (1) If the total clearance dimension (gap check result) is equal
to or greater than 1.5 mm, before further flight, replace the cardan
pin assembly, in accordance with Airbus AOT A32L003-14, dated March
10, 2014, including Appendices 1, 2, and 3 (the issue date is not
specified on the appendices).
    (2) If the total clearance dimension (gap check) is less than
1.5 mm but greater than 0.6 mm, do the actions specified in
paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Before further flight, send the information (Appendix 2
proforma, photographs, and the movement traceability sheet)
specified in paragraph 4.2.3, ``Findings,'' of Airbus AOT A32L003-
14, dated March 10, 2014, including Appendices 1, 2, and 3, to
Airbus at the address specified in Appendix 2 of Airbus AOT A32L003-
14, dated March 10, 2014.
    (ii) Within 30 days after accomplishing the gap check, repair
using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-
116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval
(DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.

(i) New Reporting of Inspection Results

    For airplanes on which a gap check specified in paragraph (h) of
this AD has been done: Except as required by paragraph (h)(2)(i) of
this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and
(i)(2) of this AD, report all findings (including no findings) to
Airbus, in accordance with Airbus AOT A32L003-14, dated March 10,
2014, including Appendices 1, 2, and 3, (the issue date is not
specified on the appendices).
    (1) If the gap check was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the gap check was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    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. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2014-
0066 (Corrected March 20, 2014), for related information. This MCAI
may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2014-0584.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33

5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 15, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-20262 Filed 8-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 250)]
[Notices]
[Page 78479-78481]
[DOCID:fr29de06-118]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55000; File No. SR-BSE-2006-47]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment No. 1 Thereto to Eliminate Fees on Certain Exchange
Traded Funds and to Establish Fees on Certain Options on Indexes

December 21, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 14, 2006, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the BSE.
On December 20, 2006, BSE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\3\ The BSE has designated this proposal as one establishing or
changing a due, fee, or other charge applicable only to a member under
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\5\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange, among other things: (1)
Clarified that the proposed rule change establishes fees applicable
only to members for transactions in options on indices effected by
members; (2) made additional amendments to correct certain errors
and omissions; and (3) corrected certain errors in the purpose
section of the proposed rule change. Changes made in Amendment No. 1
have been incorporated into this notice.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    BSE is proposing to amend the Fee Schedule of the Boston Options
Exchange (``BOX'') to remove the surcharge fee for certain Exchange
Traded Funds (``ETFs'') and to establish fees applicable only to
members for transactions in options on indices effected by members. The
BOX Fee Schedule is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public
Reference Room, and http://www.bostonoptions.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the BSE 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 these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The BSE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    BSE is proposing to amend the BOX Fee Schedule to remove the
surcharge fee for transactions in options on the ETF Nasdaq 100
(``QQQQs''), the Standard & Poor's (``S&P'') Depository Receipts
(``SPY''), the iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology Index Fund (``IBB''),
iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (``IWM''), iShares Russell 2000 Growth
Index Fund (``IWO''), the S&P Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund (``XLE'')
and the S&P Financial Select Sector SPDR Fund (``XLF''). The Exchange
is proposing to remove the surcharge from its Fee Schedule because it
no longer pays a licensing fee on such ETFs.
    The Exchange is also proposing to establish a fifteen (15) cent
surcharge fee for transactions in options on the Russell 2000[supreg]
Index (``RUT''),\6\ the full

value Nasdaq-100[supreg] Index (``NDX''),\7\ and the reduced value
Nasdaq-100[supreg] Index (Mini-NDX[supreg] Index (``MNX'')) \8\
effected by members for broker-dealer proprietary accounts.\9\ The
Exchange represents that these fees will only be charged to BOX members
and shall apply to Linkage Orders \10\ under a pilot program that is
set to expire on July 31, 2007. The Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change will further the Exchange's goal of introducing new
products to the marketplace that are competitively priced. BOX began
trading options on RUT, NDX, and MNX on November 13, 2006 but did not
begin charging fees for transactions in the above-referenced products
until November 14, 2006, the date SR-BSE-2006-47 was filed with the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Russell 2000[supreg]is a trademark and service mark of the
Frank Russell Company, used under license. Neither Frank Russell
Company's Publication of the Russell Indexes nor its licensing of
its trademarks for use in connection with securities or other
financial products derived from a Russell Index in any way suggests
or implies a representation or opinion by Frank Russell Company as
to the attractiveness of investment in any securities or other
financial products based upon or derived from any Russell Index.
Frank Russell Company is not the issuer of any such securities or
other financial products and makes no express or implied warranties
or merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose with
respect to any Russell Index or any data included or reflected
therein, nor as to results to be obtained by any person or any
entity from the use of the Russell Index or any data included or
reflected therein. Options on RUT are currently listed for trading
on the American Stock Exchange (``AMEX''), BOX, the Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE''), and the International Securities
Exchange, LLC (``ISE''). See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
53968 (June 9, 2006), 71 FR 34971 (June 16, 2006) (approving Amex
listing); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54397 (August 31,
2006), 71 FR 53142 (September 8, 2006) (approving BOX listing);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51749 (May 26, 2005), 70 FR
34510 (June 14, 2005) (approving CBOE listing); Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 51858 (June 16, 2005), 70 FR 36218 (June 22, 2005)
(approving ISE listing).
    \7\ Nasdaq[supreg], Nasdaq-100[supreg] and Nasdaq-100
Index[supreg] are registered trademarks of The Nasdaq Stock Market,
Inc. (which with its affiliates are the ``Corporations'') and are
licensed for use by the Boston Options Exchange Group in connection
with the trading of options products based on the Nasdaq-100
Index[supreg]. The product(s) have not been passed on by the
Corporations as to their legality or suitability. The product(s) are
not issued, endorsed, sold, or promoted by the Corporations. The
Corporations make no warranties and bear no liability with respect
to the product(s). The Corporations do not guarantee the accuracy
and/or uninterrupted calculation of the Nasdaq-100 Index[supreg] or
any data included therein. The Corporations make no warranty,
express or implied, as to results to be obtained by licensee, owners
of the product(s), or any other person or entity from the use of the
Nasdaq-100 Index[supreg] or any data included therein. The
Corporations make no express or implied warranties, and expressly
disclaim all warranties of merchantability or fitness for a
particular purpose or use with respect to the Nasdaq-100
Index[supreg] or any data included therein. Without limiting any of
the foregoing, in no event shall the Corporations have any liability
for any lost profits or special, incidental, punitive, indirect or
consequential damages, even if notified of the possibility of such
damages.
    \8\ Options on NDX and MNX are currently listed for trading on
Amex, BOX, CBOE, and ISE. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
45163 (December 18, 2001), 66 FR 66958 (December 27, 2001) (imposing
licensing fees for transactions in options on the NDX and MNX, among
other things); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51884 (June 20,
2005), 70 FR 36973 (June 27, 2005) (correcting Amex's failure to
file a proposed rule change with respect to its listing of NDX and
MNX); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54397 (August 31, 2006),
71 FR 53142 (September 8, 2006) (approving BOX NDX and MNX listing);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51351 (March 9, 2005), 70 FR
12917 (March 16, 2005) (approving CBOE NDX and MNX listing);
Securities Exchange Release No. 51397 (March 18, 2005), 70 FR 15372
(March 25, 2005) (approving ISE NDX and MNX listing).
    \9\ The Exchange notes that the fees that are the subject of
this proposed rule change do not apply to public customer orders.
    \10\ See BOX Rules Chapter XII, Section 1(defining Linkage
Orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has entered into licensing agreements to use various
indexes and trademarks in connection with the listing and trading of
index options on the Russell[supreg] 2000 Index, Nasdaq-100[supreg]
Index and the Mini-NDX[supreg] Index. As with certain other licensed
options, the Exchange is adopting a surcharge fee for trading in these
options to defray the licensing costs. The Exchange believes that
charging BOX Options Participants \11\ that trade these instruments is
the most equitable means of recovering the licensing costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See BOX Rules, Chapter 1, Section 1(a)(40) (defining
Options Participants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchanges believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirement of Section 6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\13\ in particular, in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
its members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, as amended,
does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing rule change, as amended, establishes or
changes a due, fee, or other charge applicable only to a member, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \14\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \15\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of such amended proposed rule change, the Commission may
summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
    \16\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on December 20, 2006, the date on which the BSE
submitted Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
Electronic Comments
     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-BSE-2006-47 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2006-47. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in

the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will
be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
BSE. 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-BSE-
2006-47 and should be submitted on or before January 19, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-22395 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P