[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24191-24193]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10859]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85892; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2019-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To
Adopt a New MIDP Routing Option Under Rule 4758 and Make Conforming
Changes to Rule 4703(e)

May 20, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On January 31, 2019, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Exchange'' or
``Nasdaq'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to adopt a new MIDP routing option under Nasdaq
Rule 4758 and make conforming changes to Nasdaq Rule 4703(e). The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on February 19, 2019.\3\ On April 3, 2019, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
of the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period within which
to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule
change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\5\ On May 10, 2019, the Exchange filed Amendment
No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\6\ The Commission received no
comment letters on the proposed rule change. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on Amendment No. 1 from
interested persons, and is approving the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85113 (February 12,
2019), 84 FR 4885.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85498, 84 FR 14171
(April 9, 2019). The Commission designated May 20, 2019 as the date
by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule
change.
    \6\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange: (1) Provided clarification
and additional details regarding the operation of the MIDP routing
option; (2) provided additional arguments supporting the proposed
rule change; and (3) made technical and conforming changes.
Amendment No. 1 is available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2019-004/srnasdaq2019004-5485246-185147.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to adopt MIDP, a new order routing option
under Nasdaq Rule 4758(a)(1)(A).\7\ The MIDP routing option would allow
Nasdaq members to seek midpoint liquidity on Nasdaq and other markets
on the Nasdaq system routing table.\8\ The MIDP routing option would be
available only for a non-displayed order \9\ with a midpoint pegging
order attribute.\10\ The Exchange would accept an order with the MIDP
routing option (``MIDP order'') only with a time-in-force of Market
Hours DAY or IOC, and a MIDP order could not be flagged to participate
in any of the Nasdaq crosses.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See proposed Nasdaq Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(xvi).
    \8\ See id.; see also Amendment No. 1, supra note 6, at 4.
    \9\ See Nasdaq Rule 4702(b)(3) (defining Nasdaq's non-displayed
order type).
    \10\ See proposed Nasdaq Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(xvi). See also
Nasdaq Rule 4703(d) (defining Nasdaq's midpoint pegging order
attribute).
    \11\ See proposed Nasdaq Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(xvi). The Exchange
proposes a conforming change to Nasdaq Rule 4758(a)(1), which
currently provides that order routing is available during Nasdaq
System Hours, to allow for the times-in-force applicable to the MIDP
routing option (i.e., Market Hours Day or IOC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, a MIDP order would check the Nasdaq system for
available shares and any remaining shares would then be routed to
destinations on the system routing table that support midpoint eligible
orders.\12\ A MIDP order to buy (sell) would be routed with a limit
price that is at the lesser (greater) of: (1) The current NBO (NBB); or
(2) the order's entered limit price (if applicable).\13\ If shares
remain unexecuted after routing, the order would return to Nasdaq and
check the Nasdaq system for available shares, with remaining shares
posted on the Nasdaq book as a non-displayed order with a midpoint
pegging order attribute (unless

an IOC).\14\ If a MIDP order has a time-in-force of IOC and there are
unexecuted shares remaining after routing, the order would first check
the Nasdaq system for available shares, and then any remaining shares
would be cancelled.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See proposed Nasdaq Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(xvi). MIDP orders
(including those that have a minimum quantity order attribute) would
route sequentially and in their full amount to the various venues on
the Nasdaq system routing table. See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6,
at 5 n.7.
    \13\ See proposed Nasdaq Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(xvi). If the entered
limit price of a buy (sell) MIDP order is less (greater) than the
current midpoint price, the order would not be routed but would
instead be posted on the Nasdaq book as a non-displayed order with a
midpoint pegging order attribute, unless the order has a time-in-
force of IOC, in which case the order would be cancelled. See id.
Once on the Nasdaq book, if the NBBO moves and the order's limit
price is equal to the midpoint of the NBBO (i.e., the price of the
resting order is not being updated to a new midpoint price), the
order would not subsequently route. See Amendment No. 1, supra note
6, at 5 n.8. If the NBBO updates so that a resting MIDP order would
be updated to a new midpoint price, it would be routed again and, if
shares remain unexecuted after routing, the order would check the
Nasdaq system for available shares with any remaining shares
reposted to the Nasdaq book. See proposed Nasdaq Rule
4758(a)(1)(A)(xvi).
    \14\ See proposed Nasdaq Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(xvi).
    \15\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to allow a member to use the minimum
quantity order attribute \16\ upon entry of a MIDP order.\17\ If, upon
entry, the size of a MIDP order is less than the minimum quantity
designated by the member, the order would be rejected.\18\ If, at any
point during the routing process and prior to the MIDP order returning
to post on the Nasdaq book, the remaining size of the order becomes
less than the specified minimum quantity, the order would be cancelled
back to the member.\19\ If shares of a MIDP order with a minimum
quantity order attribute remain unexecuted after routing, the order
would return to Nasdaq and check the Nasdaq system for available shares
with any remaining shares posted on the Nasdaq book (unless an IOC) as
a non-displayed order with a midpoint pegging order attribute and the
minimum quantity condition specified by the member upon entry of the
order.\20\ As noted above, if a MIDP order has a time-in-force of IOC
and there are unexecuted shares remaining after routing, the order
would first check the Nasdaq system for available shares, and then any
remaining shares would be cancelled.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Nasdaq Rule 4703(e) (defining Nasdaq's minimum quantity
order attribute).
    \17\ See proposed Nasdaq Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(xvi). The Exchange
proposes a conforming change to Nasdaq Rule 4703(e), which currently
provides that an order with a minimum quantity order attribute and a
routing order attribute will be rejected. According to the Exchange,
an order could not have both a minimum quantity order attribute and
a routing order attribute due to limitations in the Nasdaq system,
but the Exchange has made technical changes to allow an order to
have both the minimum quantity order attribute and the MIDP routing
option. See Amendment No, 1, supra note 6, at 7. As proposed, the
minimum quantity order attribute could only be combined with the
MIDP routing option and not with any other routing options. See id.
    \18\ See proposed Nasdaq Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(xvi).
    \19\ See id. To reflect this order cancellation, the Exchange
proposes a conforming change to Nasdaq Rule 4703(e), which currently
provides that if, following a partial execution, the number of
shares remaining in an order with a minimum quantity order attribute
is less than the specified minimum quantity value, the minimum
quantity value of the order will be reduced to the number of shares
remaining.
    \20\ See id.
    \21\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement the proposal in the second
quarter of 2019, and the Exchange represents that it will provide
notice of the implementation date at least 30 days prior to
implementation via an Equity Trader Alert.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6, at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\23\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\24\ which requires, among other things,
that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the MIDP routing option would provide
an additional mechanism for Nasdaq members to seek midpoint liquidity
on Nasdaq and other markets.\25\ The Commission also believes that
allowing Nasdaq members to use the minimum quantity order attribute
with the MIDP routing option would provide Nasdaq members with
additional control over the execution of their MIDP orders. In
particular, the Commission believes that allowing an order to have both
the minimum quantity order attribute and the MIDP routing option would
enable Nasdaq members to seek midpoint executions on Nasdaq and away
venues while controlling the amount of order information provided
through executions. Moreover, the Commission believes that cancelling a
MIDP order if the order's remaining size is less than the specified
minimum quantity (rather than continuing to route) would allow a Nasdaq
member's minimum quantity instruction to be honored every time its MIDP
order is routed to an away venue as a new order \26\ and would further
enable the member to control the amount of order information provided
while the MIDP order is accessing liquidity at away venues.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ As the Exchange noted, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'')
and Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'') each currently have two
routing strategies (RMPT and RMPL) that utilize a midpoint peg order
to check their respective systems for available shares, with any
remaining shares sent to destinations on their system routing tables
that support midpoint eligible orders. See Amendment No. 1, supra
note 6, at 8 n.18; BYX Rule 11.13(b)(3)(Q); EDGA Rule 11.11(g)(12).
Under those strategies, if any shares remain unexecuted after
routing, they are posted on the exchange book as a midpoint peg
order, unless otherwise instructed by the user. See Amendment No. 1,
supra note 6, at 8 n.18; BYX Rule 11.13(b)(3)(Q); EDGA Rule
11.11(g)(12).
    \26\ According to the Exchange, each time a MIDP order is routed
to an away venue it is treated as a new order. See Amendment No. 1,
supra note 6, at 6 n.14.
    \27\ Also, the member may reenter a MIDP order with updated
characteristics (e.g., minimum quantity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1 to the Proposed Rule
Change

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the
Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2019-004 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2019-004. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NASDAQ-2019-004, and should be submitted on or before June 14, 2019.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day
after the date of publication of notice of the filing of Amendment No.
1 in the Federal Register. As discussed above, in Amendment No. 1, the
Exchange provided clarification and additional details regarding the
operation of the MIDP routing option, provided additional arguments in
support of the proposed rule change, and made various technical and
conforming changes. The Commission believes that the changes made in
Amendment No. 1 do not raise any material or novel regulatory issues.
Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\28\ to approve the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\29\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2019-004), as
modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-10859 Filed 5-23-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9254-9255]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04276]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0343; A-1-FRL-9974-77-Region 1]

Approval of Section 112(l) Authority for Hazardous Air
Pollutants; Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning
Facilities; State of Vermont

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
grant the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) the
authority to implement and enforce, with respect to area sources only,
the Vermont Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Rule in place of the
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Facilities (Dry Cleaning NESHAP).
Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA), the VT DEC submitted a request for
approval to implement and enforce Vermont's Perchloroethylene Dry
Cleaning Rule of the Vermont Air Pollution Control Regulations as a
partial substitution for the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Facilities (Dry
Cleaning NESHAP), as it applies to area sources. EPA has reviewed this
request and is proposing to determine that the Vermont
Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Rule satisfies the requirements
necessary for partial rule substitution. Thus, EPA is hereby proposing
to grant VT DEC's request. This action would not affect the authority
of any party to implement and enforce the Dry Cleaning NESHAP with
respect to major source dry cleaners. This approval would make the
Vermont Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Rule federally enforceable in
Vermont.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 4, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2017-0343 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any

information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lancey, Air Permits, Toxics, and
Indoor Programs Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New
England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code
OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules Section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the Vermont Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning
Rule in place of the Dry Cleaning NESHAP for area sources as a direct
final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: February 26, 2018.
Alexandra Dapolito Dunn,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2018-04276 Filed 3-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12908-12909]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5088]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0027]

Appointment/Reappointment to the National Emergency Medical
Services Advisory Council (NEMSAC)

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Request for Applicants for Appointment/Reappointment
to the National Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council (NEMSAC).

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is soliciting applications for appointment or
reappointment to DOT's NEMSAC. The purpose of NEMSAC is to serve as a
nationally recognized council of emergency medical services (EMS)
representatives and consumers to provide advice and recommendations
regarding EMS to DOT and its modal administration, NHTSA, and through
NHTSA to the Federal Interagency Committee on EMS (FICEMS).

DATES: Applications for membership (including resume or curriculum
vitae (CV), letters of recommendation, and a statement identifying the
EMS sector or discipline that the applicant seeks to represent) should
reach NHTSA at the address below on or before 5 p.m. EST, on Friday,
March 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to apply for membership, your application should
be submitted by:
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Use only overnight mail such as UPS or FedEx to:
U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Office of Emergency Medical Services, Attn: NEMSAC,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., NTI-140, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer, Drew
Dawson, Director, Office of Emergency Medical Services, telephone (202)
366-9966; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Noah Smith at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NEMSAC is an advisory council established by
DOT in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.) and DOT Order
1120.3B. NEMSAC provides information, advice, and recommendations to
the Secretary via the Administrator of NHTSA, and through NHTSA to
FICEMS on matters relating to all aspects of development and
implementation of EMS.
    In accordance with the NEMSAC Charter, a copy of which is available
at www.EMS.gov/nemsac, members should represent a cross-section of the
diverse agencies, organizations, and individuals involved in EMS
activities and programs in the U.S. NEMSAC consists of not more than 26
members, each of whom shall be appointed by the Secretary. Members
serve in a ``representatives'' capacity on NEMSAC and not as Special
Government Employees. Pursuant to the charter, 24 of these members must
represent the perspectives of particular sectors of the EMS community.
Members will be selected for their individual expertise and to reflect
a balanced representation of interests from across the EMS community,
but no member will represent a specific organization.
    To the extent practical, the final council membership shall assure
representation from the following sectors of the EMS community:

 Volunteer EMS
 Fire-based (career) EMS
 Private (career non-fire) EMS
 Hospital-based EMS
 Tribal EMS
 Air Medical EMS
 Local EMS service directors/administrators
 EMS Medical Directors
 Emergency Physicians
 Trauma Surgeons
 Pediatric Emergency Physicians
 State EMS Directors
 State Highway Safety Directors
 EMS Educators
 Public Safety Call-taker/Dispatcher (911)
 EMS Data Managers
 EMS Researchers
 Emergency Nurses
 Hospital Administration
 Public Health
 Emergency Management
 State Homeland Security Director
 Consumers (not directly affiliated with an EMS or healthcare
organization)
 State or local legislative bodies (e.g. city/county councils;
state legislatures)

    Qualified individuals interested in serving on the NEMSAC are
invited to

apply for appointment by submitting a resume or CV along with letters
of recommendation to NHTSA at the addresses listed above by March 30,
2012. Each applicant must identify the EMS sector or discipline that he
or she seeks to represent. Current NEMSAC members whose terms are
ending should notify the Designated Federal Officer of their interest
in reappointment in lieu of submitting a new application, and should
provide an updated resume or CV and a restatement of the current sector
they represent by March 30, 2012.
    The NEMSAC meets in plenary session approximately once per quarter.
Members serve without compensation from the Federal Government;
however, pursuant to the terms of the Charter, they receive travel
reimbursement and per diem in accordance with applicable Federal Travel
Regulations.

    Issued on: February 28, 2012.
Jeffrey P. Michael,
Associate Administrator for Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2012-5088 Filed 3-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


1 January 31, 2003 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Atrazine: Addendum to Revised Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment and Recommendations for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document ( dated August 30, 2002). PC Code: 080803. DP Barcode: D287742 FROM: Catherine Eiden, Branch Senior Scientist Reregistration Branch 3 Health Effects Division THROUGH: Donna Davis, Branch Chief Reregistration Branch 3 Health Effects Division TO: Kimberly Lowe, Chemical Review Manager Special Review and Reregistration Division Please find attached an addendum to HED's Revised Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment and Recommendations for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document ( dated August 30,2002). This addendum includes an assessment of any new information and data submitted to the Agency during the 60 day public comment period. Any changes in the outcome, updates, or revisions to the document are reflected in this addendum. The revised occupational and residential exposure assessment document ( 8/ 30/ 02) and this addendum should be considered together. 2 Background:

HED provides this addendum to the Revised Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment and Recommendations for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document ( the revised ORE chapter) dated August 30, 2002 to correct and revise the document prior to issuance of the Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( IRED) for atrazine. This addendum includes changes to the short term aggregate post application risk assessments based on discussion with the registrant ( Sipcam) and revisions reflecting current policies. This addendum should be read in conjunction with the August 30, 2002 chapter.

Dermal Absorption Factor Typo Correction:

Page 35 of the August 30, 2002 revised ORE chapter contains the following sentence: " The short term exposure assessment does not require use of a dermal absorption factor since the toxicity endpoint is based on 21 day dermal study". This sentence is incorrect and should have been deleted from the revised ORE chapter. All short term dermal risk assessments for atrazine use an endpoint from a 28 day oral study in the rat. Therefore, a dermal absorption factor is required to extrapolate from an oral endpoint for the purposes of dermal risk assessment. The dermal absorption factor used in the dermal risk assessments was 6%.

Post application Dermal Exposure and Risk Estimates:

HED has recalculated post application dermal exposure and risk estimates for homeowners ( adults and children) for liquid applications of atrazine to turf. Table 15 summarizes these results.

A total of 8 dermal postapplication exposure scenarios were evaluated. All of these scenarios, involving exposure following application of liquid or granular formulations, had short term dermal MOEs greater than 300, for high contact activities on turf for children and adults. The lowest MOEs of 310 for children and 510 for adults are based on average residues for the day of application at two sites ( NC and GA) each receiving liquid formulations at 2 lbs ai/ A. Residues had dissipated sufficiently on the day after treatment to raise MOEs for children to 750 and adults to 1300. For adults golfing and mowing on treated turf, all short term dermal MOEs exceeded 300.

Adults may reasonably be expected to perform more than one activity on treated lawns in a single day, but an eight hour duration of exposure is unlikely. Therefore, it is reasonable to aggregate the exposures from playing/ gardening ( highest exposure rate), walking, and mowing ( lower exposure rate) for a single MOE. The MOE for all adult post application exposures aggregated from liquid applications at 2 lbs ai/ A is 460 and does not exceed HED's 3 level of concern. It is also possible that an adult would apply herbicide spray to a lawn and then play on it or mow it later that day. In such an event, the aggregated dermal MOE for the day would be slightly lower than the target 300 for that day. Based on the liquid application ( 2 lbs ai\ A) study residue values for adult handler and adult post application exposures, the aggregate MOE for dermal exposures is 270. [ See table 14b from the August 30, 2002 document ( 1/[ 1/ 460 + 1/ 640] = 270)]. However, this aggregate exposure scenario is not very likely and is considered a high end estimate of exposure. Aggregate risk estimates for adults applying and playing on treated lawns based on the granular residue data do not exceed HED's level of concern.

If the liquid formulation application rates are reduced to 1 lb ai/ A, the resulting MOE for estimates of dermal exposures result in a MOE of 610 for children and greater than 1000 for adults. Combined dermal exposures for adults at a 1 lb ai/ a rate result in a risk estimate of 860 that does not exceed HED's level of concern.

Table 15 should now read:

Table 15. Residential Short term Dermal Postapplication Risks for Atrazine ( Using TTR values from liquid and granular Atrazine turf studies  MRID Nos. 449580 01, 449588 01)

Dermal Scenarios Exposu re Time ( hours / day) Short Term Risks Transfe r Coeffic ient a ( cm 2/ hr ) MOEs c GA granular GA/ NC liquid ( Avg.) FL granular Nonirrig Irrig . Nonirrig Irrig.

Adult dermal turf contact 2 14,500 4300 3400 510 ( 2 lb ai/ A) 1000 ( 1 lb ai/ A) 1200 21,000 Child dermal turf contact 2 5,200 2600 2000 310 ( 2 lb ai/ A) 610 ( 1 lb ai/ A) 690 13,000 Table 15. Residential Short term Dermal Postapplication Risks for Atrazine ( Using TTR values from liquid and granular Atrazine turf studies  MRID Nos. 449580 01, 449588 01)

Dermal Scenarios Exposu re Time ( hours / day) Short Term Risks Transfe r Coeffic ient a ( cm 2/ hr ) MOEs c GA granular GA/ NC liquid ( Avg.) FL granular Nonirrig Irrig . Nonirrig Irrig.

4 Adult walking, playing golf 4 500 62,000 49,00 0 7400 ( 2 lb ai/ A) 14,800 ( 1 lb ai/ A) 17,000 310,00 0 Adult push mowing lawn 2 500 120,00 0 98,00 0 15,000 ( 2 lb ai/ A) 30,000 ( 1 lb ai/ A) 34,000 620,00 0 a Transfer coefficient from revisions to Residential SOP's ( 02/ 01). b TTR source: liquid and granular turf studies MRID # 449580 01, 449588 01, DAT 0 1 residue ( see Table 9). The average DAT 0 residue was used and calculated from 2 sites across 2 time points for each site ( 0 and 0.5 days ). All formulations in the studies were applied at a rate of 2 lb ai/ acre. c MOE = Short term NOAEL ( 104 mg/ kg/ day) / dermal dose where dermal dose = TTR ( µ g/ cm 2) x TC ( cm 2/ hr) x conversion factor ( 1 mg/ 1,000 µ g) x exposure time ( 2 hrs/ day) / body weight ( 70 kg adult or 15 kg 1 to 6 yearold

Notes: TTR = Turf Transferable Residue. Short term NOAEL of 104 mg/ kg/ day reflects 6% dermal absorption factor applied to 6.25 mg/ kg/ day short term oral endpoint.

Post application Incidental Oral Exposure and Risk Estimates:

HED has recalculated post application incidental oral exposure and risk estimates for children for liquid applications of atrazine to 5 turf. Table 15 summarizes these results. At the 2 lb ai/ A application rate, incidental oral ( non dietary) risk estimates exceed HED's level of concern for toddlers incidental oral exposures on lawns treated with liquid formulations. Risk estimates are 210 for hand to mouth activity and 200 for combined oral ( non dietary) exposures. Risk estimates do not exceed HED's level of concern for toddlers incidental oral exposures on lawns treated with granular formulations. Risk estimates are 950 for hand to mouth activity and 730 for combined oral ( non dietary) exposures.

If the liquid formulation application rates are reduced to 1 lb ai/ A, the resulting MOE for toddlers' hand to mouth exposures is 420, and does not exceed HED's levels of concern. Combined incidental oral exposures for toddlers result in a MOE of 390 and do not exceed HED's levels of concern.

Combined Dermal and Incidental Oral Exposures for Children:

It is considered reasonably likely that dermal and oral incidental exposures may occur in the same day for children playing on atrazine treated lawns. It can be seen from calculations presented in Table 17 that the incidental hand to mouth exposure estimate constitutes most of the total non dietary oral dose. The overall incidental oral MOE is only slightly less ( 200 for spray, 730 for granular) than the MOE for the hand to mouth estimate ( 210 spray; 950 granular). The individual dermal and oral routes of exposure on sprayed turf each exceed the level of concern, and adding them mathematically produces an even lower MOE of 125, while the granular total MOE for dermal + oral incidental exposure is at least 350. These route specific and dermal + oral aggregated doses and MOEs were calculated for the purposes of the overall risk assessment for this chemical, which will consider all routes of exposure. Finally, ingestion of granules, as explained earlier, is not aggregated because it is considered an infrequent, episodic event.

At 1 lb ai/ A risk estimates for liquid formulations for dermal exposures result in a MOE of 610 for children. At 1 lb ai/ A for liquid formulations, combined dermal and incidental oral exposures for toddlers ( 1/[ 1/ 610 + 1/ 390]) result in a MOE of 240 for toddlers' aggregate dermal and oral exposures, a highly conservative risk estimate, which is slightly lower than 300. 6 Table 17 should read as follows:

Table 17. Residential Short term Oral Nondietary Postapplication Risks to Children ( 1 6) from " Hand to Mouth" and Ingestion Exposure When Reentering Lawns Treated with Granular or Liquid Atrazine Formulations Type of Exposure Appli catio n Rate a ( lb ai/ ac re) Ingestion Rate or Other Assumptions b Oral Dose c ( mg/ kg/ d ay) MOE d Hand to Mout h Acti vity liqui d 2 Residential SOPs 0.030 0.015 ( 1 lb ai/ A) 210 420 granu lar Atrazine Granular Hand Press Study 0.0066 950 Turfgrass/ O bject Mouthing 2 liqui d or granu lar Residential SOPs 0.0019 3300 1 liqui d Residential SOPs 9.5 x 10 4 6600 Ingestion of Soil 2 liqui d or granu lar Residential SOPs 1.0E 4 62,50 0 1 liqui d Residential SOPs 5 x 10 5 130,0 00 Total of the Oral Exposures Above e Liquid formulation 0.032 ( 2 lb ai/ A) 0.016 ( 1 lb ai/ A) 200 390 Granular formulation 0.0086 730 Incidental Ingestion of Granules 0.42% ai 0.2 0.4 g/ day ( 100 200 lbs formulation / acre) 0.056 0.11 57 110 1.5% ai 0.2 0.4 16 31 Table 17. Residential Short term Oral Nondietary Postapplication Risks to Children ( 1 6) from " Hand to Mouth" and Ingestion Exposure When Reentering Lawns Treated with Granular or Liquid Atrazine Formulations Type of Exposure Appli catio n Rate a ( lb ai/ ac re) Ingestion Rate or Other Assumptions b Oral Dose c ( mg/ kg/ d ay) MOE d 7 Footnotes:

a Application rates represent maximum label rates from current EPA registered labels of 2 lb ai/ A. b Assumptions from Draft Residential SOP's ( 1997, revised 2/ 01).

c Oral doses calculated using formulas presented in the Residential SOPs ( December, 1999). Short term doses were calculated using the following formulas. Hand to mouth; in the absence of DFR data, Revised Residential SOPs ( 02/ 01) are used: oral dose to child ( 1 6 year old) on the day of treatment ( mg/ kg/ day) = [ application rate ( lb ai/ acre) x fraction of residue dislodgeable with potentially wet hands ( 5%) x 11.2 ( conversion factor to convert lb ai/ acre to µ g/ cm 2)] x median surface area for 1 3 fingers ( 20 cm 2/ event) x hand to mouth rate ( ST: 20 events/ hour) x 50% saliva extraction factor x exp. time ( 2 hr/ day) x 0.001 mg/ g] / bw ( 15 kg child ). For granular formulations, the atrazine granular hand press study data ( MRIDs 45622310, 45622311) were used: the average moistened hand mouth granular residue transfer rate of 1.1% of the ai application rate. Grass/ object mouthing; oral dose to child ( 1 6 year old) on the day of treatment ( mg/ kg/ day) = [ application rate ( lb ai/ acre x 11.2 ( conversion factor to convert lb ai/ acre to µ g/ cm 2)) x fraction of residue dislodgeable ( 5%) x ingestion rate of grass ( 25 cm 2/ day) x .001 mg/ g] / bw ( 15 kg child ). Soil ingestion; oral dose to child ( 1 6 year old) on the day of treatment ( mg/ kg/ day) = [( application rate ( lb ai/ acre) x fraction of residue retained on uppermost 1 cm of soil ( 100% or 1.0/ cm) x 4.54E+ 08 µ g/ lb conversion factor x 2.47E 08 acre/ cm 2 conversion factor x 0.67 cm 3/ g soil conversion factor) x 100 mg/ day ingestion rate x 1.0E 06 g/ µ g conversion factor] / bw ( 15 kg). Short term dose based residue on the soil on day of application. Granular pellet ingestion: ( mg/ kg/ day) oral dose to child ( 1 6 year old) = [ Granule ingestion rate ( 0.2 0.4 g/ day) x Fraction of ai of granule formulations x 1,000 mg/ g] / bw ( 15 kg). d Oral MOE = Oral NOAEL ( 6.25 mg/ kg/ day for short term assessments) / Oral Dose ( mg/ kg/ day). Oral NOAEL determined from a rat study. MOEs are reported to two significant figures; target MOE is at least 300.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 19, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64793-64795]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26300]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0811; Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-026-AD;
Amendment 39-16839; AD 2011-21-16]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Diamond Aircraft Industries Powered
Sailplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Diamond
Aircraft Industries Model H-36 ``DIMONA'' powered sailplanes. This AD
results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and
correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes
the unsafe condition as:

    A report has been received of a failed air brake control system
torsion tube on a Diamond (formerly Hoffman) H 36 powered sailplane.
The results of the subsequent investigation show that the failure
was due to corrosion damage.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, may lead to
failure of the air brake control system in flight, resulting in
reduced control of the aeroplane.

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 23, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of November 23,
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Diamond
Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Stra[szlig]e 5, A-2700 Wiener
Neustadt, Austria, telephone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622 26780; e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.diamond-air.at. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 8, 2011 (76
FR 48047). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    A report has been received of a failed air brake control system
torsion tube on a Diamond (formerly Hoffman) H 36 powered sailplane.
The results of the subsequent investigation show that the failure
was due to corrosion damage.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, may lead to
failure of the air brake control system in flight, resulting in
reduced control of the aeroplane.
    To address this unsafe condition, Diamond published Mandatory
Service Bulletin (MSB) 36-105, containing instructions to test and
inspect the air brake control system torsion tube for corrosion
damage and, depending on findings, the application of anticorrosive
agent to the inside of the torsion tube, or replacement of the
torsion tube with a serviceable part.
    For the reasons described above, this new AD requires repetitive
tests and inspections of the air brake control system torsion tube
and applicable corrective actions, depending on findings.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (76 FR 48047, August 8,
2011) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 9 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 4.5 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will about $172 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $4,990.50, or $554.50 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will
take about 5 work-hours and require parts costing $275, for a cost of
$700 per

product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may
need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (76 FR 48047, August 8,
2011), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800)
647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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 AD:

2011-21-16 Diamond Aircraft Industries: Amendment 39-16839; Docket
No. FAA-2011-0811; Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-026-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November 23,
2011.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Diamond Aircraft Industries Model H-36
``DIMONA'' powered sailplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in
any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    A report has been received of a failed air brake control system
torsion tube on a Diamond (formerly Hoffman) H 36 powered sailplane.
The results of the subsequent investigation show that the failure
was due to corrosion damage.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, may lead to
failure of the air brake control system in flight, resulting in
reduced control of the aeroplane.
    To address this unsafe condition, Diamond published Mandatory
Service Bulletin (MSB) 36-105, containing instructions to test and
inspect the air brake control system torsion tube for corrosion
damage and, depending on findings, the application of anticorrosive
agent to the inside of the torsion tube, or replacement of the
torsion tube with a serviceable part.
    For the reasons described above, this new AD requires repetitive
tests and inspections of the air brake control system torsion tube
and applicable corrective actions, depending on findings.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Within the next 6 months after November 23, 2011 (the
effective date of this AD), remove, test, and inspect the air brake
control system torsion tube for corrosion damage following Diamond
Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB 36-105, dated April
21, 2011, as specified in Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Service
Bulletin No. MSB 36-105/1, dated May 2, 2011.
    (2) If corrosion damage is found during the inspection required
in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD or during any repetitive inspection
required in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this AD, before further
flight after the inspection in which corrosion damage is found,
replace the affected torsion tube with a serviceable part. Before
installation, apply an anticorrosive agent to the inside of the
torsion tube. Do these required actions following Diamond Aircraft
Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB 36-105, dated April 21,
2011, as specified in Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Service
Bulletin No. MSB 36-105/1, dated May 2, 2011. After replacement,
repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 60 months,
remove, test, and inspect the newly installed air brake control
system torsion tube for corrosion damage following the procedures
specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
    (3) If no corrosion damage is found during the inspection
required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD or during any repetitive
inspection required in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this AD,
before reinstalling the torsion tube, apply an anticorrosive agent
to the inside of the torsion tube. Do these required actions
following Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB
36-105, dated April 21, 2011, as specified in Diamond Aircraft
Industries GmbH Service Bulletin No. MSB 36-105/1, dated May 2,
2011. Repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 60 months,
remove, test, and inspect the air brake control system torsion tube
for corrosion damage following the procedures specified in paragraph
(f)(1) of this AD.
    (4) As of November 23, 2011 (the effective date of this AD), do
not install an air brake control system torsion tube on an affected
sailplane unless it has been inspected following the procedures
specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, is found to be corrosion
free, and an anticorrosive agent has been applied to the inside of
the tube as specified in Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Work
Instruction WI-MSB 36-105, dated April 21, 2011, as specified in
Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Service Bulletin No. MSB 36-105/1,
dated May 2, 2011.

    Note 1: Credit will be given for the initial test and inspection
required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD and the corrective actions
required in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this AD if already done
before November 23, 2011 (the effective date of this AD) following
Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Service Bulletin No. MSB 36-105,
original issue.

(g) FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
sailplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, 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.

(i) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2011-0110, dated June 16, 2011; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH
Service Bulletin No. MSB 36-105/1, dated May 2, 2011; and Diamond
Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB 36-105, dated April
21, 2011, for related information.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference (IBR) under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 of the
following service information on the date specified:
    (2) Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Service Bulletin No. MSB
36-105/1, dated May 2, 2011; and Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH
Work Instruction WI-MSB 36-105, dated April 21, 2011, approved for
IBR on November 23, 2011.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Stra[szlig]e 5, A-2700
Wiener Neustadt, Austria, telephone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622
26780; E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.diamond-air.at.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 5, 2011.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-26300 Filed 10-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P