[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 181 (Monday, September 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58059-58061]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23982]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 29787; 812-13891]

Investment Managers Series Trust, et al.; Notice of Application

 September 13, 2011.

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section 15(a) of
the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain
disclosure requirements.

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

    Summary of Application: Applicants request an order that would
permit them to enter into and materially amend subadvisory agreements
without shareholder approval and would grant relief from certain
disclosure requirements.
    Applicants: Investment Managers Series Trust (the ``Trust'') and
Palmer Square Capital Management LLC (``Palmer Square'').

DATES: Filing Dates: The application was filed on April 8, 2011, and
amended on June 8, 2011 and August 15, 2011.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the
application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on October 11, 2011, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers,
a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of
the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: c\o Laurie A. Dee,
Esq., Bingham McCutchen LLP, Plaza Tower, 18th Floor, 600 Anton
Boulevard, Costa Mesa, CA 92626.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith A. Gregory, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6815, or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation).

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

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Trust, a Delaware statutory trust, is registered under the
Act as an open-end management investment company and is comprised of 35
series, including the Palmer Square Absolute Return Fund (``PS
Fund'').\1\ Palmer

Square is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act'') and serves as the investment
adviser to the PS Fund. Any other Adviser will be registered as an
investment adviser under the Advisers Act. An Adviser will serve as the
investment adviser to each Fund pursuant to an investment advisory
agreement (the ``Advisory Agreement'') with the Fund. Each Advisory
Agreement will be approved by the board of trustees of the Trust
(``Board''), \2\ including a majority of the trustees who are not
``interested persons,'' as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act, of
the Trust or the Adviser (``Independent Trustees'') and by the initial
shareholder of the Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants also request relief with respect to existing and
future series of the Trust and any other existing or future
registered open-end management investment company or series thereof
that: (a) Is advised by Palmer Square or any entity controlling,
controlled by or under common control with Palmer Square or its
successors (any such entity, together with Palmer Square, an
``Adviser''); (b) uses the manager of managers structure described
in the application (the ``Manager of Managers Structure'') and (c)
complies with the terms and conditions of the application (together
with the PS Fund, the ``Funds'' and each, individually, a ``Fund'').
For the purposes of the requested order, ``successor'' is limited to
an entity or entities that result from a reorganization into another
jurisdiction or a change in the type of business organization. All
entities that currently intend to rely on the requested relief are
named as applicants. If the name of any Fund contains the name of a
Subadviser (as defined below), the name of the Adviser that serves
as the primary adviser to the Fund will precede the name of the
Subadviser.
    \2\ The term ``Board'' also includes the board of trustees or
directors of a future Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Under the terms of each Advisory Agreement, the Adviser, subject
to the oversight of the Board, will be responsible for the overall
management of each Fund's business affairs and selecting the Funds'
investments in accordance with its investment objectives, policies and
restrictions. For the investment management services that it provides
to the Fund, an Adviser will receive the fee specified in the Advisory
Agreement. The Advisory Agreement also permits the Adviser to retain
one or more subadvisers, at its own cost and expense, for the purpose
of managing the investment of all or a portion of the assets of a Fund.
Pursuant to this authority, the Adviser will enter into investment
subadvisory agreements (``Subadvisory Agreements'') with certain
unaffiliated subadvisers (each, a ``Subadviser'') to provide investment
advisory services to the Funds. Palmer Square currently employs seven
Subadvisers for the PS Fund. Each Subadviser is and each future
Subadviser will be registered as an investment adviser under the
Advisers Act. The Adviser will supervise, evaluate and allocate assets
to the Subadvisers, and make recommendations to the Board about their
hiring, retention or termination, at all times subject to the authority
of the Board.
    3. Applicants request an order to permit the Adviser, subject to
Board approval, to enter into and materially amend Subadvisory
Agreements without obtaining shareholder approval. The requested relief
will not extend to any subadviser that is an affiliated person, as
defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Trust, a Fund or the
Adviser, other than by reason of serving as a subadviser to the Fund
(``Affiliated Subadviser'').
    4. Applicants also request an exemption from the various disclosure
provisions described below that may require the Funds to disclose fees
paid by the Adviser to the Subadvisers. An exemption is requested to
permit each Fund to disclose (as both a dollar amount and as a
percentage of the respective Fund's net assets): (a) The aggregate fees
paid to the Adviser and any Affiliated Subadvisers; and (b) the
aggregate fees paid to Subadvisers (collectively, ``Aggregate Fee
Disclosure''). Any Fund that employs an Affiliated Subadviser also will
provide separate disclosure of any fees paid to any Affiliated
Subadviser.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that it is
unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered
investment company except pursuant to a written contract that has been
approved by the vote of a majority of the company's outstanding voting
securities. Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class
of stock in a series investment company affected by a matter must
approve that matter if the Act requires shareholder approval.
    2. Form N-1A is the registration statement used by open-end
investment companies. Item 19(a)(3) of Form N-1A requires disclosure of
the method and amount of the investment adviser's compensation.
    3. Rule 20a-1 under the Act requires proxies solicited with respect
to an investment company to comply with Schedule 14A under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``1934 Act''). Items 22(c)(1)(ii),
22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A, taken together,
require a proxy statement for a shareholder meeting at which the
advisory contract will be voted upon to include the ``rate of
compensation of the investment adviser,'' the ``aggregate amount of the
investment adviser's fees,'' a description of the ``terms of the
contract to be acted upon,'' and, if a change in the advisory fee is
proposed, the existing and proposed fees and the difference between the
two fees.
    4. Regulation S-X sets forth the requirements for financial
statements required to be included as part of investment company
registration statements and shareholder reports filed with the
Commission. Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation S-X require
that investment companies include in their financial statements
information about investment advisory fees.
    5. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or
from any rule thereunder, if such exemption is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors
and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the
Act. Applicants state that the requested relief meets this standard for
the reasons discussed below.
    6. Applicants assert that the shareholders are relying on the
Adviser's expertise to select one or more Subadvisers best suited to
achieve a Fund's investment objectives. Applicants assert that, from
the perspective of the shareholder, the role of the Subadvisers is
substantially equivalent to that of the individual portfolio managers
employed by traditional advisory firms. Applicants state that requiring
shareholder approval of each Subadvisory Agreement would subject a Fund
to expenses and delays and may preclude the Adviser from acting
promptly. Applicants note that the Advisory Agreement and any
subadvisory agreement with an Affiliated Subadviser will remain subject
to section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.
    7. Applicants assert that Subadvisers use a ``posted'' rate
schedule to set their fees. Applicants state that, while Subadvisers
are willing to negotiate fees lower than those posted in the schedule,
they are reluctant to do so where the fees are disclosed to the public
and other Subadvisers. Applicants submit that the requested relief will
allow the Adviser to negotiate more effectively with Subadvisers.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Before a Fund may rely on the requested order, the operation of
the Fund in the manner described in the application will be approved by
a majority of the Fund's outstanding

voting securities, as defined in the Act, or in the case of a Fund
whose public shareholders purchase shares on the basis of a prospectus
containing the disclosure contemplated by condition 2 below, by the
initial shareholder(s) before offering shares of that Fund to the
public.
    2. Each Fund relying on the requested order will disclose in its
prospectus the existence, substance, and effect of any order granted
pursuant to the application. Each Fund will hold itself out to the
public as utilizing the Manager of Managers Structure. The prospectus
will prominently disclose that the Adviser has ultimate responsibility
(subject to oversight by the Board) to oversee the Subadvisers and
recommend their hiring, termination, and replacement.
    3. Within 90 days of the hiring of a new Subadviser, Fund
shareholders will be furnished all information about the new Subadviser
that would be included in a proxy statement, except as modified to
permit Aggregate Fee Disclosure. This information will include
Aggregate Fee Disclosure and any change in disclosure caused by the
addition of the new Subadviser. To meet this obligation, each Fund will
provide shareholders, within 90 days of the hiring of a new Subadviser,
an information statement meeting the requirements of Regulation 14C,
Schedule 14C and Item 22 of Schedule 14A under the 1934 Act, except as
modified by the order to permit Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
    4. An Adviser will not enter into a Subadvisory Agreement with any
Affiliated Subadviser without such agreement, including the
compensation to be paid thereunder, being approved by the shareholders
of the applicable Fund.
    5. At all times, at least a majority of the Board will be
Independent Trustees, and the nomination of new or additional
Independent Trustees will be placed within the discretion of the then-
existing Independent Trustees.
    6. Whenever a subadviser change is proposed for a Fund with an
Affiliated Subadviser, the Board, including a majority of the
Independent Trustees, will make a separate finding, reflected in the
applicable Board minutes, that such change is in the best interests of
the Fund and its shareholders, and does not involve a conflict of
interest from which the Adviser or the Affiliated Subadviser derives an
inappropriate advantage.
    7. Independent legal counsel, as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under
the Act, will be engaged to represent the Independent Trustees. The
selection of such counsel will be within the discretion of the then-
existing Independent Trustees.
    8. Each Adviser will provide the Board, no less frequently than
quarterly, with information about the profitability of the Adviser on a
per-Fund basis. The information will reflect the impact on
profitability of the hiring or termination of any Subadviser during the
applicable quarter.
    9. Whenever a Subadviser is hired or terminated, the Adviser will
provide the Board with information showing the expected impact on the
profitability of the Adviser.
    10. An Adviser will provide general management services to each
Fund, including overall supervisory responsibility for the general
management and investment of each Fund's assets and, subject to review
and approval of the Board, will: (a) Set each Fund's overall investment
strategies; (b) evaluate, select and recommend Subadvisers to manage
all or a part of each Fund's assets; (c) allocate and, when
appropriate, reallocate each Fund's assets among one or more
Subadvisers; (d) monitor and evaluate the performance of Subadvisers;
and (e) implement procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the
Subadvisers comply with each Fund's investment objective, policies and
restrictions.
    11. No Trustee or officer of the Trust or a Fund, or director,
manager, or officer of an Adviser, will own directly or indirectly
(other than through a pooled investment vehicle that is not controlled
by such person), any interest in a Subadviser, except for (a) ownership
of interests in the Adviser or any entity that controls, is controlled
by, or is under common control with the Adviser or (b) ownership of
less than 1% of the outstanding securities of any class of equity or
debt of any publicly traded company that is either a Subadviser or an
entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with
a Subadviser.
    12. Each Fund will disclose in its registration statement the
Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
    13. In the event the Commission adopts a rule under the Act
providing substantially similar relief to that in the order requested
in the application, the requested order will expire on the effective
date of that rule.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-23982 Filed 9-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 35)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9442-9443]
[DOCID:fr21fe08-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0067; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-98]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Rockport, ME

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:  Direct final rule, request for comments.

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

SUMMARY:  This action establishes Class E Airspace at Rockport, ME, to
support a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS)
Special Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP) that has been developed for
medical flight operations into the Penobscot Bay Medical Center. This
action enhances the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule
(IFR) operations by providing that required controlled airspace to
protect for this approach around Rockport, ME.

DATES:  Effective 0901 UTC, June 5, 2008. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. Comments for
inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before April 7,
2008.

ADDRESSES:  Send comments to this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building, Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone 1-
800-647-5527; Fax;<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket Number
FAA-2008-0067; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-98, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    You may review the public docket containing the rule, any comments
received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office
(see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Melinda Giddens, System Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Direct Final Rule Procedure

    The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse
or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule.
The FAA has determined that this rule only involves an established body
of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are
necessary to keep them operationally current. Unless a written adverse
or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse
or negative comment is received within the comment period, the
regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the
close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the
Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were
received and confirming the effective date. If the FAA receives, within
the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice
of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct
final rule will be published in the Federal Register, and a notice of
proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Comments Invited

    Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was
not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are
invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views,
or arguments as they may desire. An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded from and comments may be submitted and reviewed at
http://www.regulations.gov Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov. or

the Federal Register's web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
 Communications should identify both docket numbers and be

submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption
ADDRESSES above or through the Web site. All communications received on
or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this
rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received.
    Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports
the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in
evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether
additional rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted
will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments,
in the Rules docket for examination by interested persons. Those
wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in
response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on
which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-
2008-0067; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-98.'' The postcard

will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes Class E airspace at Rockport, ME providing the
controlled airspace required to support the new Copter Area Navigation
(RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) 287 Point in Space (PinS)
approach developed for the Penobscot Bay Medical Center. Controlled
airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is
required for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations and to encompass
all Instrument Approach Procedures (IAPs) to the extent practical,
therefore, the FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) part 71 to establish a 6-mile radius Class E5 airspace at
Rockport, ME. Designations for Class E airspace areas extending upward
from 700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth are published in
FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007 effective September 15, 2007,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

Agency Findings

    The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of government. Therefore, it is
determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace near the Penobscot Bay Medical
Center in Rockport, ME.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed August 15, 2007, effective September 15, 2007, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700
feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ABE ME E5 Rockport, ME [New]

Penobscot by Medical Center
    (Lat. 44[deg]08[min]35[sec] N., long. 69[deg]05[min]07[sec] W.)
Point in Space coordinates
    (Lat. 44[deg]08[min]35[sec] N., long. 69[deg]04[min]13[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
of the Earth within a 6-mile radius of the Point in Space
Coordinates (lat. 44[deg]08[min]35[sec] N., long.
69[deg]04[min]13[sec] W.) serving the Penobscot Bay Medical Center.
* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 31, 2008.
Barry A. Knight,
Acting Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center.
[FR Doc. 08-725 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 112 (Tuesday, June 13, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27021-27027]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12238]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0467; FRL-9961-68]

Cumene Sulfonic Acid and Its Ammonium, Calcium, Magnesium,
Potassium, Sodium and Zinc Salts; Exemption From the Requirement of a
Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of cumene sulfonic acid and its ammonium,
calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium and zinc salts when used as an
inert ingredient (surfactants, related adjuvants of surfactants) in
pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and to animals.
Huntsman Petrochemical LLC submitted a petition to EPA under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment
of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation
eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for
residues of cumene sulfonic acid and its ammonium, calcium, magnesium,
potassium, sodium and zinc salts when applied or used under these
conditions.

DATES: This regulation is effective June 13, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 14, 2017,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0467, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0467 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
August 14, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0467, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of July 19, 2013 (78 FR 43115) (FRL-9392-
9), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-10565) by
Huntsman Corp., 8600 Gosling Rd., The Woodlands, TX 77381. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.920 and 180.930 be amended by establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of cumene
sulfonic acid and its ammonium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium
and zinc salts (CAS Reg. Nos. 15763-76-5, 16066-35-6, 164524-02-1,
28085-69-0, 28348-53-0, 28631-63-2, 32073-22-6, 37475-88-0, 37953-05-2,
and 90959-88-9) when used as an inert ingredient (surfactant, related
adjuvants of surfactants) in pesticide formulations applied to growing
crops and to animals. That document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by Huntsman Corp., the petitioner, which is available
in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments
received in response to the notice of filing.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the 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 . . .''
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human
health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to
pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the
inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert
ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures
that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA
is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for cumene sulfonic acid and its
ammonium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium and zinc salts
including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this
action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with cumene
sulfonic acid and its ammonium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium
and zinc salts 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.
    The toxicity of cumene sulfonic acid and its ammonium, calcium,
magnesium, potassium, sodium and zinc salts was considered in an
October 2005 health assessment performed by the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in the Screening
Information Data Set (SIDS) Initial Assessment Profile (SIAP) for the
Hydrotropes Category.
    The hydrotropes category covers ``toluene sulfonic acid, sodium
salt,'' ``xylene sulfonic acid, sodium salt'' and ``cumene sulfonic
acid, sodium salt.'' This category also includes isomeric forms (ortho,
meta, and/or para) of the respective sulfonic acid salts (sodium,
ammonium, calcium and potassium). OECD notes that the hydrotropes
category may be initially considered as three sub-groups: The methyl,
dimethyl and methylethyl benzene sulfonates, (or the toluene, xylene
and cumene sulfonates). Although the counter ion will also determine
the physical and chemical behavior of the compounds, the chemical
reactivity and classification for this purpose is not expected to be
affected by the difference in counter ion. The structures as well as
the physical/chemical and toxicological properties of these chemical
entities are essentially the same. The three subgroups are expected to
be generally comparable and predictable in their chemical behavior (as
such or in solution) and that members from one subgroup may be useful
for interpolations across to other subgroups and to the hydrotropes
category in general. Therefore, on this basis, data on other members of
the hydrotrope category can be used in a `read across' fashion to
determine the toxicity of cumene sulfonic acid and its ammonium,
calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium and zinc salts
    Cumene sulfonic acid and its salts and the structurally related
hydrotropes are categorized as having low acute toxicity via the oral,
dermal, and inhalation. They are not dermal irritants or dermal
sensitizers and are considered slight eye irritants.
    Several subchronic studies via the oral route for hydrotropes are
available in the database. In two 14-day toxicity studies in mice and
rats with sodium xylene sulfonate, no significant treatment related
toxicity was observed at doses up to 4% in the diet (approximately
4,000 mg/kg/day) in mice. In rats, there were some mortalities which
were not observed in a dose-related manner as well as losses of body
weight that were attributable to palatability of the test article.
These effects were not considered as adverse findings. In a repeat
study in rats,

mortality was not observed at doses up to 4% in the diet. A 90-day
subchronic toxicity study conducted in Wistar rats with doses of sodium
xylene sulfonate up to 5% in the diet. A decrease in relative spleen
weight in females, along with some clinical chemistry and hematology
changes were observed at the highest dose (3,454 mg/kg/day). In a
separate 90-day toxicity study in rats and mice, no treatment related
effects were observed in mice and rats given sodium xylene sulfonate in
the diet at 2% (approximately 2,439 and 2,467 mg/kg/day in mice and
rats, respectively). In a 90-day dietary toxicity study with sodium
cumene sulfonate in Wistar rats, no evidence of systemic toxicity was
observed at doses up to 0.5% in the diet, equivalent to 114 mg/kg/day
(corrected for purity of the test substance). Dermal toxicity studies
for 17 days and 90 days duration were conducted in mice and rats. No
systemic toxicity was observed in mice and rats exposed dermally to
sodium xylene sulfonate at doses up to 1,620 and 500 mg/kg/day in mice
and rats, respectively. The results of a 2-year dermal toxicity study
showed no evidence of skin neoplasms or any other neoplasms at doses up
to 727 and 240 mg/kg/day in mice and rats, respectively.
    Hydrotropes were tested for their mutagenic potential in various in
vivo and in vitro genotoxicity assays. Sodium xylene sulfonate gave a
negative response in a mouse lymphoma assay, the Ames assay, Sister
Chromatid Exchange assay, (positive at cytotoxic concentrations only),
a Chromosome Aberration Test and three mouse micronucleus assays.
Calcium xylene sulfonate and sodium cumene sulfonate were negative for
mutagenicity in the Ames test. No evidence of tumors were observed in
mice and rats treated dermally with sodium xylene sulfonate for two
years at doses of 0, 60, 120 and 240 mg/kg/day for rats and 0, 182, 364
and 727 mg/kg/day for mice.
    No reproductive toxicity studies are available for the hydrotropes,
although available oral and dermal toxicity studies with various
hydrotropes included examination of reproductive organs of both sexes.
The OECD SIDS assessment included reviews of a 91-day oral rat feeding
study with sodium cumene sulfonate, a 90-day feeding study with sodium
xylene sulfonate (mice and rats) and the 2-year dermal studies with
sodium xylene sulfonate (in mice and rats) which included examination
of the reproductive organs of both sexes. There was no evidence from
these studies to suggest that hydrotropes would have an adverse effect
on reproductive organs by either the oral or dermal route. No
developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits are available in the
cumene sulfonic acid and its salts. However, a developmental study in
rats is available for a surrogate hydrotrope, calcium xylene sulfonate.
In this study the NOAEL for maternal and fetal toxicity was the highest
dose tested, 3,000 mg/kg/day (936 mg/kg/day, corrected for purity of
test material). Based on this information, there is no evidence to
consider cumene sulfonic acid and its salts as being developmental
toxicants.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by cumene sulfonic acid and its salts and the
other members of the hydrotrupes category 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, ``Decision Document for Petition
Number 1E7936; sodium xylene sulfonate Human Health Risk and Ecological
Effects Assessments for Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a
Tolerance When Used as Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Formulations.''
at pp. 8-14 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0951

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    No endpoint of concern following a single dose was identified in
the available database. The Agency identified a NOAEL of 763 mg/kg/day
for systemic toxicity, which was selected from an oral subchronic
study. Effects observed in this study were a decrease in spleen weight
in females along with some clinical chemistry and hematology changes at
the LOAEL of 3,454 mg/kg/day. No adverse effects were reported in
males. This study was used for chronic dietary exposure assessment. An
uncertainty factor of 100X is applied (10X for interspecies
extrapolation and 10X for intraspecies variability). For several
reasons, no additional uncertainty factor is necessary for the use of
subchronic study data for chronic exposure assessment. First there was
a wide dose spread between the toxic effects seen at the LOAEL of 3,454
mg/kg/day and the NOAEL of 763 mg/kg/day. Second, the changes observed
in clinical chemistry and hematological parameters were small in
magnitude and no effects on organs were observed in the study.
Therefore, the changes observed were not considered toxicologically
significant. Finally, the NOAEL in a separate 90-day study in rats was
2,467 mg/kg/day indicating the lower NOAEL value in the selected study
is an artifact of dose selection. Therefore, EPA concluded that there
is no need to retain an additional uncertainty factor for use of a
short-term study for long-term exposure assessment.
    Based on the physicochemical data and lack of systemic toxicity in
the available dermal toxicity studies, EPA concluded that there is no
need to conduct quantitative dermal risk exposure assessment.
    No data are available on the inhalation toxicity of cumene sulfonic
acid and its salts, however, as a solid with an extremely low vapor
pressure and a particle size that is not in the respirable range, the
likelihood of significant inhalation exposure to the inert ingredient
as a gas, vapor, or aerosol is negligible.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to cumene sulfonic acid and its salts, EPA considered exposure
under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
use as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing
crops and animals under the proposed exemptions from the requirement of
a tolerance given at 40 CFR 180.920 and

40 CFR 180.930. EPA assessed dietary exposures from cumene sulfonic
acid and its salts in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide chemical, if a
toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of
concern occurring as a result of a one-day or single exposure. No such
effects were identified in the toxicological studies for cumene
sulfonic acid and its salts, therefore, a quantitative acute dietary
exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. The chronic dietary exposure assessment for
this inert ingredient utilizes the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model
Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID), Version 3.16, which
includes food consumption information from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, ``What
We Eat In America'', (NHANES/WWEIA). This dietary survey was conducted
from 2003 to 2008. In the absence of actual residue data, the inert
ingredient evaluation is based on a highly conservative model which
assumes that the residue level of the inert ingredient would be no
higher than the highest established tolerance for an active ingredient
on a given commodity. Implicit in this assumption is that there would
be similar rates of degradation between the active and inert ingredient
(if any) and that the concentration of inert ingredient in the
scenarios leading to these highest of tolerances would be no higher
than the concentration of the active ingredient. The model assumes 100
percent crop treated (PCT) for all crops and that every food eaten by a
person each day has tolerance-level residues. A complete description of
the general approach taken to assess inert ingredient risks in the
absence of residue data is contained in the memorandum entitled ``Alkyl
Amines Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food
and Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the
Inerts.'' (D361707, S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0738.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. For the purpose of the
screening level dietary risk assessment to support this request for an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for cumene sulfonic acid
and its salts, a conservative drinking water concentration value of 100
ppb based on screening level modeling was used to assess the
contribution to drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessments
for parent compound. These values were directly entered into the
dietary exposure model.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).
    Cumene sulfonic acid and its salts may be used as inert ingredient
in pesticide products that are registered for specific uses that may
result in indoor or outdoor residential inhalation and dermal
exposures. A screening-level residential exposure and risk assessment
was completed utilizing conservative residential exposure assumptions.
The Agency assessed short- and intermediate-term exposures for
residential handlers that would result from low pressure handwand, hose
end sprayer and trigger sprayer for outdoor scenarios of each pesticide
type, herbicide, insecticide and fungicide and mopping, wiping and
aerosol sprays for indoor scenarios. The Agency assessed post-
application short-term dermal exposure for children and adults as well
as short-term hand-to-mouth exposure for children from contact with
treated lawns.
    Cumene sulfonic acid and its salts may also be used as a component
of personal care products. The OECD SIDS assessment estimated highest
human exposures resulting from personal care product use. These
exposure estimates ranged from 0.02-0.14 mg/kg/day for shampoos and
hair conditioners to 0.11-0.17 mg/kg/day for liquid face and hand
soaps. Exposure estimates for cleaning product use and residuals on
clothing range from 0.01-0.08 mg/kg/day. All exposure evaluations
included conservative (protective) input assumptions (e.g., all modeled
human exposures are conservative due to the use of a default assumption
of 100% absorption). However, the physicochemical data and available
toxicological data suggest that dermal absorption is likely to be
minimal. Based on the lack of concern for dermal toxicity and the low
estimates of residential exposure via the oral, dermal or inhalation
routes of exposure, a quantitative residential risk assessment was not
performed.
    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 cumene sulfonic acid and its salts to share a
common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and cumene
sulfonic acid and its salts do not appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. While there are other chemicals belonging
to the cumene sulfonic acid and its salts class of chemicals (i.e., the
``hydrotropes'' category) that may have a similar toxicity profile,
this does not necessarily mean that all such chemicals share a common
mechanism of toxicity; therefore, EPA has not assumed that cumene
sulfonic acid and its salts have a common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances. In any event, EPA believes that these chemicals will
be used as an alternative to cumene sulfonic acid and its salts rather
than in conjunction with cumene sulfonic acid and its salts and would
not likely co-occur. Even if they did, the cPAD for pesticidal uses
occupies only 7% of the cPAD for the general population and any
potential increase in exposure to this class of chemicals will still be
below any levels of concern. For information regarding EPA's efforts to
determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to
evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site
at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

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 are no reproductive
toxicity studies reported for cumene sulfonic acid and its salts.
However, no effects on reproductive organs were observed at very high
doses in number of studies such as a 91-day oral rat feeding study with
sodium cumene sulfonate, the 90-day feeding study with sodium xylene
sulfonate, and the 2-year dermal studies

with sodium xylene sulfonate. Based on the above evidence, EPA
concluded that cumene sulfonic acid and its salts are not likely to be
a reproductive toxicant. This conclusion is in agreement with the OECD
conclusion that there is no evidence to suggest that cumene sulfonic
acid and its salts would have an adverse effect on reproductive organs.
    In a developmental toxicity study in rats with calcium xylene
sulfonate, no maternal or developmental effects were observed at doses
of 3,000 mg/kg/day (equal to 936 mg/kg/day corrected for purity of test
material).
    There is no evidence of prenatal or postnatal sensitivity as a
result of exposure to sodium xylene sulfonate.
    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. Available studies included several 90-day toxicity studies via
oral and dermal routes, chronic studies, mutagenicity battery, a
developmental study in rats and metabolism studies. These studies
provide an adequate characterization of cumene sulfonic acid and its
salts toxicity.
    ii. There is no indication that cumene sulfonic acid and its salts
is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental
neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. No reproductive toxicity study or developmental toxicity study
are available for cumene sulfonic acid and its salts. However, the
concern for increased susceptibility of infants and children exposure
to cumene sulfonic acid and its salts are low because no effects on
reproductive parameters were observed in various oral toxicity studies
and the developmental toxicity in rats for surrogate chemical show lack
of systemic toxicity at doses up to 936 mg/kg/day (as discussed under
Unit IV.D.2.).
    iv. No evidence of immunotoxicity was observed in the database
except slightly decreased in spleen weight was observed at the LOAEL of
3,454 mg/kg/day. There are no concerns for immunotoxicity and an
immunotoxicity study is not required because the slight decreases in
spleen weights were observed at high doses without any evidence of
histopathological findings.
    v. No additional uncertainty factor is needed for the use of
subchronic study data for chronic exposure assessment. The rational for
this decision is provided in Unit IV.B.
    vi. 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. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground water and surface water modeling
used to assess exposure to sodium xylene sulfonate in drinking water.
EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application
exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers.
These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed
by cumene sulfonic acid and its salts.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Determination of safety section. EPA determines whether acute and
chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate
exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For
linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of
acquiring cancer 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
appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
cumene sulfonic acid and its salts is not expected to pose an acute
risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
cumene sulfonic acid and its salts from food and water under the
proposed uses will utilize 7% of the cPAD for the U.S. population and
26% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population subgroup
receiving the greatest exposure.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). A short-term
adverse effect relative to residential exposure was not identified.
Short-term risk is assessed based on short-term residential exposure
plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there are no short-term
residential dermal exposure effects of concern and chronic dietary
exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective
cPAD (which is at least as protective as a POD that would be used to
assess short-term risk), no further assessment of short-term risk is
necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for
evaluating short-term risk for cumene sulfonic acid and its salts.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). An intermediate-term adverse effect relative to residential
exposure was not identified. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based
on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary
exposure. Because there are no adverse effects identified for
intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has
already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is
at least as protective as a POD that would be used to assess
intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term
risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk
assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for cumene sulfonic
acid and its salts.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based upon no
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies via the dermal route of exposure, negative response for
mutagenicity in a battery of genotoxicity tests, and lack of any
structural alerts for carcinogenicity, cumene sulfonic acid and its
salts are not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    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 residues of cumene sulfonic acid and its ammonium, calcium,
magnesium, potassium, sodium and zinc salts.

V. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of
cumene sulfonic acid and its ammonium, calcium, magnesium, potassium,
sodium and zinc salts.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established under 40 CFR 180.920 and 180.930 for cumene sulfonic acid
and its ammonium, calcium, magnesium,

potassium, sodium and zinc salts (CAS Reg. Nos. 15763-76-5, 16066-35-6,
164524-02-1, 28085-69-0, 28348-53-0, 28631-63-2, 32073-22-6, 37475-88-
0, 37953-05-2, and 90959-88-9) when used as an inert ingredient
(surfactant, related adjuvant of surfactant in pesticide formulations
applied to growing crops and animals.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

VIII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: April 27, 2017.
Michael Goodis,
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.  180.920, add alphabetically the inert ingredient to the
table to read as follows:

Sec.  180.920  Inert ingredients used pre-harvest; exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Inert ingredients              Limits              Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Cumene sulfonic acid and its        ..............  Surfactant, related
 ammonium, calcium, magnesium,                       adjuvant of
 potassium, sodium and zinc salts                    surfactant.
 (CAS Reg. Nos. 15763-76-5, 16066-
 35-6, 164524-02-1, 28085-69-0,
 28348-53-0, 28631-63-2, 32073-22-
 6, 37475-88-0, 37953-05-2, and
 90959-88-9).

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

0
3. In Sec.  180.930, add alphabetically the inert ingredient to the
table to read as follows:

Sec.  180.930  Inert ingredients applied to animals; exemptions from
the requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Inert ingredients              Limits              Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Cumene sulfonic acid and its        ..............  Surfactant, related
 ammonium, calcium, magnesium,                       adjuvant of
 potassium, sodium and zinc salts                    surfactant.
 (CAS Reg. Nos. 15763-76-5, 16066-
 35-6, 164524-02-1, 28085-69-0,
 28348-53-0, 28631-63-2, 32073-22-
 6, 37475-88-0, 37953-05-2, and
 90959-88-9).

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

[FR Doc. 2017-12238 Filed 6-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 83)]
[Notices]
[Page 23811]
[DOCID:fr01my07-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL07-58-000]

Organization of PJM States, Inc.; District of Columbia Public
Service Commission; Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission; Kentucky
Public Service Commission; Maryland Public Service Commission, New
Jersey Board of Public Utilities; North Carolina Utilities Commission;
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission; and the Virginia State
Corporation Commission, Petitioners, v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,
Respondent; Notice of Complaint

April 24, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 23, 2007, the Organization of PJM States,
Inc., the District of Columbia Public Service Commission; the Indiana
Utility Regulatory Commission; the Kentucky Public Service Commission;
the Maryland Public Service Commission; the New Jersey Board of Public
Utilities; the North Carolina Utilities Commission; the Pennsylvania
Public Utility Commission; and the Virginia State Corporation
Commission (collectively, Complainants) hereby submit a complaint
against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), alleging apparent violations
of Attachment M of the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff with regard
to the independence and operation of the PJM Market Monitor and Market
Monitoring Unit.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 3, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-8210 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48972-48975]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19152]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0250; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-165-AD;
Amendment 39-17930; AD 2014-16-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. This AD
was prompted by reports of in-flight uncommanded rudder movements. This
AD requires revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) to incorporate an
uncommanded yaw motion procedure. We are issuing this AD to prevent in-
flight uncommanded rudder movements, which could lead to structural
failure and subsequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective September 23, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 23,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0250 or in person at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier,
Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9,
Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://

www.bombardier.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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luke Walker, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc.
Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on April 21, 2014 (79 FR 22069). The NPRM was prompted
by reports of in-flight uncommanded rudder movements. The NPRM proposed
to require revising the AFM to incorporate an uncommanded yaw motion
procedure. We are issuing this AD to prevent in-flight uncommanded
rudder movements, which could lead to structural failure and subsequent
loss of the airplane.
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2013-22, dated August 12, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604
Variant) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    There have been several reported incidents where Bombardier
Regional Jet aeroplanes experienced in-flight uncommanded rudder
movements. Investigation revealed that a failure of the voltage
regulator inside the yaw damper actuator could lead to uncommanded
yaw movement. If not corrected, this condition could lead to
structural failure and the subsequent loss of the aeroplane.
    Since the Challenger 604 aeroplanes have the same system, and
can also experience a similar problem of uncommanded yaw movement,
Transport Canada is issuing this [Canadian] AD that mandates the
introduction of an emergency procedure to the Aeroplane Flight
Manual (AFM) to address the above-mentioned unsafe condition.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0250-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 22069, April 21,
2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

``Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in This 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.
    We have become 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 AD to obtain corrective actions from a
manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved
by the FAA, TCCA, or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval
Organization (DAO).
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature. The DAO signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are TCCA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DAO-authorized signature approval are not TCCA-
approved, unless TCCA 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 AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described
previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 22069, April 21, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 22069, April 21, 2014).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 116 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $9,860, or $85 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    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.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations. gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0250; or in person at
the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this
AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2014-16-06 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-17930. Docket No. FAA-
2014-0250; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-165-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective September 23, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604
Variant) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/
Ns) 5301 through 5665 inclusive, and 5701 and subsequent.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 22, Autopilot
System; and Code 27, Rudder Actuator.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of in-flight uncommanded rudder
movements. We are issuing this AD to prevent in-flight uncommanded
rudder movements, which could lead to structural failure and
subsequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
Emergency Procedures Section of the applicable Bombardier AFM to
incorporate the uncommanded yaw motion procedure specified in
paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) For Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes having S/Ns
5301 through 5665 inclusive: Procedure 1.C., Uncommanded Yaw Motion,
of Section 03-06, Automatic Flight Control System, of Chapter 3--
Emergency Procedures, of the Bombardier Challenger CL-604 AFM, PSP
604-1, Revision 89, dated July 8, 2013.
    (2) For Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes having S/Ns
5701 and subsequent: Procedure 1.C., Uncommanded Yaw Motion, of
Section 03-06, Automatic Flight Control System, of Chapter 3--
Emergency Procedures, of the Bombardier Challenger CL-605 AFM, PSP
605-1, Revision 25, dated July 8, 2013.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, FAA,
New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, 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 New York ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager,
Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
516-794-5531. 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, New York ACO,
ANE-170, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA; or Transport Canada
Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval
Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must
include the DAO-authorized signature.

(i) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-22, dated August 12, 2013,
for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on
the Internet at http://www.regulations. gov/#!documentDetail; D=FAA-
2014-0250-0002.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Procedure 1.C., Uncommanded Yaw Motion, of Section 03-06,
Automatic Flight Control System, of Chapter 3--Emergency Procedures,
of the Bombardier Challenger CL-604 Airplane Flight Manual, PSP 604-
1, Revision 89, dated July 8, 2013.
    (ii) Procedure 1.C., Uncommanded Yaw Motion, of Section 03-06,
Automatic Flight Control System, of Chapter 3--Emergency Procedures,
of the Bombardier Challenger CL-605 Airplane Flight Manual, PSP 605-
1, Revision 25, dated July 8, 2013.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) 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
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 30, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-19152 Filed 8-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 68 (Wednesday, April 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 19752]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07362]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Wilderness Line Holdings, LLC EG20-61-000; Cranell Wind Farm, LLC
EG20-62-000; Oklahoma Wind, LLC EG20-63-000; Sooner Wind, LLC EG20-64-
000; La Chalupa, LLC EG20-65-000; White Cloud Wind Project, LLC EG20-
66-000; Outlaw Wind Project, LLC EG20-67-000; Oberon Solar IB, LLC
EG20-68-000; Prospero Energy Project, LLC EG20-69-000; Pleasants LLC
EG20-70-000; Blooming Grove Wind Energy Center LLC EG20-71-000; Enel
Green Power Roadrunner Solar Project II, LLC EG20-72-000; Conrad
(Ampthill) Limited FC20-1-000]

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator and Foreign
Utility Company Status

    Take notice that during the month of March 2020, the status of the
above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign
Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's
regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2019).

    Dated: April 2, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary
[FR Doc. 2020-07362 Filed 4-7-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 70973]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28426]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: US Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 17a-2, SEC File No. 270-189, OMB Control No. 3235-0201.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 17a-2 (17 CFR 240.17a-
2), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information
to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and
approval.
    Rule 17a-2--Recordkeeping Requirements Relating to Stabilizing
Activities--requires underwriters to maintain information regarding
stabilizing activities conducted in accordance with Rule 104 of
Regulation M. The collections of information under Regulation M and
Rule 17a-2 are necessary for covered persons to obtain certain benefits
or to comply with certain requirements. The collections of information
are necessary to provide the Commission with information regarding
syndicate covering transactions and penalty bids. The Commission may
review this information during periodic examinations or with respect to
investigations. Except for the information required to be kept under
Rule 104(i) (17 CFR 242.104(i)) and Rule 17a-2(c), none of the
information required to be collected or disclosed for PRA purposes will
be kept confidential. The recordkeeping requirement of Rule 17a-2
requires the information be maintained in a separate file, or in a
separately retrievable format, for a period of three years, the first
two years in an easily accessible place, consistent with the
requirements of Exchange Act Rule 17a-4(f) (17 CFR 240.17a-4(f)).
    There are approximately 795 respondents per year that require an
aggregate total of 3,975 hours to comply with this rule. Each
respondent makes an estimated 1 annual response. Each response takes
approximately 5 hours to complete. Thus, the total compliance burden
per year is 3,975 burden hours. The total estimated internal compliance
cost for the respondents is approximately $250,425.00, resulting in a
cost of compliance for each respondent per response of approximately
$315.00 (i.e., $250,425.00/795 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: November 21, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-28426 Filed 11-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P