[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35448-35450]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14335]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67152; File No. SR-CBOE-2012-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To
Adopt Self-Trade Prevention Modifiers on the CBOE Stock Exchange

June 7, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On April 12, 2012, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') 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 Self-Trade Prevention
modifiers on the CBOE Stock Exchange (``CBSX''). The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on May 1,
2012.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters on the proposed
rule change.

This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66860 (April 25,
2012), 77 FR 25767 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to adopt Cancel Newest, Cancel Oldest, and
Cancel Both Self-Trade Prevention modifiers on CBSX. As proposed, a
CBSX trader may elect for none, or all, of his proprietary orders and
quotes to be marked with one of these types of Self-Trade Prevention
modifiers.\4\ If a CBSX trader makes an election, any quote or order he
submits will be prevented from executing against a resting opposite
side order or quote that is labeled as originating from the same
associated acronym and trading for the same account (``Same CBSX
Trader'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ According to the Exchange, a CBSX trader may only elect for
one of the three types of Self-Trade Prevention modifiers, as the
CBSX system may only be configured to permit one such election. In
addition, Self-Trade Prevention elections cannot be made on a per-
order, per-quote, or security-by-security basis due to CBSX system
limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a CBSX trader elects the Cancel Newest Self-Trade Prevention
modifier, any incoming order or quote submitted by that CBSX trader
will not execute against opposite side resting interest from the Same
CBSX Trader. The incoming order or quote (or any portion thereof) will
be canceled back to the originating CBSX trader if such order or quote
cannot trade with another eligible order or quote originating from any
origin other than the Same CBSX Trader (``Another CBSX Trader''). The
incoming order or quote may only trade with an eligible order or quote
originating from Another CBSX Trader if the order or quote originating
from Another CBSX Trader is at as good a price as the order or quote
from the Same CBSX Trader that is being ``skipped over.'' The resting
order or quote from the Same CBSX Trader will remain on the book. In
the case of an opening or re-opening, the newer of the two orders or
quotes submitted by the Same CBSX Trader will be canceled. The older
order or quote will be permitted to trade with eligible orders or
quotes originating from Another CBSX Trader, and any remaining portion
thereof will remain in the book.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that orders marked with Self-Trade
Prevention modifiers will be treated differently during openings and
re-openings because of system limitations. The CBSX system cannot
process orders marked with Self-Trade Prevention modifiers in the
same manner during openings and re-openings as during regular
trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a CBSX trader elects the Cancel Oldest Self-Trade Prevention
modifier, any incoming order or quote submitted by that CBSX trader
will not execute against opposite side resting interest from the Same
CBSX Trader. When a CBSX trader submits an incoming order or quote that
would trade against opposite side resting interest from the Same CBSX
Trader, the opposite side resting interest will be canceled. The
incoming order or quote will be eligible to trade with another eligible
order or quote originating from Another CBSX Trader. If any portion of
the incoming order or quote does not trade with another eligible order
or quote originating from Another CBSX Trader, it will be entered into
the book. In the case of an opening or re-opening, the older of the two
orders or quotes submitted by the Same CBSX Trader will be canceled.
The newer order or quote will be permitted to trade with eligible
orders or quotes originating from Another CBSX Trader, and any
remaining portion thereof will be entered into the book.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a CBSX trader elects the Cancel Both Self-Trade Prevention
modifier, any incoming order or quote submitted by that CBSX trader
will not execute against opposite side resting interest from the Same
CBSX Trader. When a CBSX trader submits an incoming order or quote that
would trade against opposite side resting interest from the Same CBSX
Trader, the opposite side resting interest will be canceled. The
incoming order or quote (or any portion thereof) will be canceled back
to the Same CBSX Trader if such order or quote (or part of such order
or quote) cannot trade with another eligible order or quote originating
from Another CBSX Trader. In the case of an opening or re-opening, both
of the two orders or quotes will be canceled.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed Self-Trade Prevention modifier rules, orders or
quotes may skip over orders or quotes from the Same CBSX Trader and
trade against eligible orders or quotes with lower priority that
originate from Another CBSX Trader, provided the prices are the same.
Therefore, the Exchange proposes to add Interpretations and Policies
.01 to Rule 52.1, Matching Algorithm/Priority, to provide that in
instances in which the Self-Trade Prevention modifiers are implicated,
the Self-Trade Prevention modifier rules will supersede other
allocation methods only for the purpose of preventing self-trades, as
described in the proposed Self-Trade Prevention modifier rule.
    Finally, CBSX Rule 51.8(t) provides for a Market-Maker Trade
Prevention Order which, if combined with a Self-Trade Prevention
modifier, could cause a conflict in order handling. Thus, the Exchange
proposes that, in circumstances where both the Market-Maker Trade
Prevention Order and a Self-Trade Prevention modifier are implicated,
the Self-Trade Prevention modifier shall take precedence.
    Once the CBSX system is enabled to permit the use of Self-Trade
Prevention modifiers, and prior to their implementation, CBSX will
announce the availability of Self-Trade Prevention modifiers to CBSX
traders via Regulatory Circular.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\8\
Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Self-Trade Prevention modifiers for proprietary orders and quotes
of CBSX traders are, according to the Exchange, designed to prevent a
market participant from unintentionally causing a proprietary self-
trade. As such, Self-Trade Prevention modifiers could provide firms
with the opportunity to better manage order flow and prevent
undesirable self-executions and the potential for, or appearance of,
``wash sales.'' \10\ The Exchange further notes that Self-Trade
Prevention modifiers may reduce false positive results on Exchange-
generated wash trading surveillance reports when orders are executed by
the Same CBSX Trader, which would increase regulatory efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ CBSX traders may have multiple connections into CBSX, and
orders routed by the same CBSX trader via different connections may,
in certain circumstances, trade against each other. The proposed
Self-Trade Prevention modifiers could provide CBSX traders the
opportunity to prevent these potentially undesirable trades. See
Notice, 77 FR at 25769.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Self-Trade Prevention modifier rules will apply to
orders and quotes because the Exchange believes

the application of these rules to quotes, as well as orders, would
allow the modifiers to be used in a more complete, comprehensive, and
consistent manner.\11\ The Commission finds that this is reasonable and
consistent with the Act. In addition, the Exchange states that it chose
to limit Self-Trade Prevention modifiers to proprietary orders and
quotes.\12\ This would allow agency orders for the Same CBSX Trader,
which may actually be for different customers, to continue to trade
with each other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Other exchanges apply similar modifiers to orders only.
See, e.g., NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(qq); BATS Rule 11.9(f).
    \12\ Other exchanges do not specify that their modifiers are
limited to proprietary orders. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that the aspect of the proposal which
would add Interpretations and Policies .01 to Rule 52.1 to provide that
in circumstances where Self-Trade Prevention modifiers are implicated,
the Self-Trade Prevention modifier rules will supersede other
allocation methods only for the purpose of preventing self-trades is
consistent with the Act. In addition, the Commission believes that the
proposal to amend Rule 51.8(t) to provide that in circumstances in
which both the Market-Maker Trade Prevention Order and a Self-Trade
Prevention modifier are implicated, the Self-Trade Prevention modifier
shall take precedence is consistent with the Act. The Commission
believes that these amendments would clarify the application of the
proposed Self-Trade Prevention modifier rules to existing CBSX rules.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\13\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2012-013) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14335 Filed 6-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NSPS for Wool Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP) and NESHAP for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN)

1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection NSPS for Wool Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP) and NESHAP for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN)

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract This Information Collection Request ( ICR) includes two Clean Air Act standards for the wool fiberglass manufacturing industry. Both the NSPS and NESHAP standards include basic recordkeeping and reporting; including initial notifications, performance testing, semiannual excess emission reports, and occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility. All reports are sent to the delegated State or local authority. In the event that there is no such authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA Regional Office.

The New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) for the regulations published at 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP were proposed on February 7, 1984, and promulgated on February 25, 1985. These regulations apply to each rotary spin wool fiberglass insulation manufacturing line, which commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction after February 2, 1984. The purpose of this NSPS is to control the emissions of particulate matter from each rotary spin wool fiberglass insulation manufacturing line. The standards limit particulate emissions to 5.5 kilograms per megagram ( 11.0 lb./ ton) of molten glass used to manufacture the product.

The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) for the regulations published at 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN were proposed on March 31, 1997, and promulgated on June 14, 1999. These regulations apply to each glass melting furnace located at a wool fiberglass manufacturing plant; each rotary spin ( RS) manufacturing line producing building insulation; each new and existing flame attenuation ( FA) manufacturing line that produces pipe products; and each new FA manufacturing line that produces heavy density products. Plants that manufacture mineral wool from rock or slag are not subject to the proposed rule but are subject to a separate NESHAP standard for mineral wool production. A facility that is determined to be an area source would not be subject to this NESHAP standard. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP and 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN. 2 In general, all NSPS and NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all sources subject to both the NSPS and NESHAP.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. All reports for both the NSPS and NESHAP are sent to the delegated State or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) Regional Office.

Approximately 32 sources are currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP. Approximately 29 sources are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN. It is estimated that no new sources will become subject to either the NSPS or NESHAP regulation in the next three years. The number of affected sources subject to these regulations was estimated based on information available from the North American Insulation Manufacturing Association ( NAIMA).

TERMS OF CLEARANCE The Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) provided the following terms of clearance:

This ICR is approved for three years, and represents a consolidation of activities previously covered by OMB numbers 2060 0114 and 2060 0359, the NSPS and NESHAP MACT standard information collections for the Wool Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing Plants. The agency should submit to OMB a request to change the burden associated with 2060 0359 in order to avoid doublecounting of burden associated with those activities. In addition, before resubmitting this ICR for extension, the agency should revise estimates of the number of respondents as appropriate, taking into consideration agency experience with these facilities.

The Office of Environmental Information ( OEI) has submitted a Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA) Change Worksheet ( OMB 83 C) for OMB's approval July 26, 2002, which was subsequently approved, and the burden for the second ICR has been reduced to zero and placed on " Inactive" status. This ICR covers both subparts. The number of respondents was revised 3 based on information available on EPA's On line Targeting and Information System ( OTIS) as well as from the NAIMA's website.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is charged under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act ( CAA), as amended, to establish standards of performance for new stationary sources that reflect:

. . . application of the best technological system of continuous emissions reduction which ( taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emissions reduction, or any non air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. Section 111( a)( l).

The Agency refers to this charge as selecting the best demonstrated technology ( BDT). Section 111 also requires that the Administrator review and, if appropriate, revise such standards every four years.

The EPA is also charged under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants ( HAPs). These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of hazardous air pollutants and shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction.

In addition, Section 114( a) states that the Administrator may require any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

( A) Establish and maintain such records; ( B) make such reports; ( C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods; ( D) sample such emissions ( in accordance with such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe); ( E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; ( F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with Section 114( a)( 3); and ( G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require. In the Administrator's judgment, particulate emissions and HAP emissions from wool 4 fiberglass manufacturing plants cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, the NSPS and NESHAP were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP and 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN respectively.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The control of emissions of particulates and HAPs from wool fiberglass manufacturing plants requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. Emissions of particulates from wool fiberglass insulation manufacturing plants are the result of operation of each rotary spin wool fiberglass insulation manufacturing line. Emissions of HAPs from wool fiberglass manufacturing plants are the result of operation of each glass melting furnace and each RS and FA manufacturing line. These standards rely on the capture of particulate and HAPs emissions by control equipment such as a wet scrubbing control device or an electrostatic precipitator. The notifications required in the applicable regulations are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements of the regulations. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated and the regulations are being met. Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standards, and serve as a record of the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations. The information generated by the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described in this ICR is used by the Agency to ensure that plants affected by the NSPS and/ or NESHAP continue to operate the control equipment and achieve compliance with the regulation. Adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting are necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable regulations, as required by the Clean Air Act. The information collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements is also used for targeting inspections, and is of sufficient quality to be used as evidence in court.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under both 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP and 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN.

3( a) Nonduplication If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is sent directly to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated State or local agency. If a State or local agency has adopted their own similar standards to implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the State or local agency can 5 be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal standards. Therefore, no duplication exists.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2002. No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3( c) Consultations Information provided by the North American Insulation Manufacturing Association ( NAIMA) was used as the primary source for determining the number of affected sources subject to these standards.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that plants are continuing to meet the standards. Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and emission limitations are met. If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and noncompliance would decrease.

3( e) General Guidelines None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR 1320.5.

3( f) Confidentiality The required information has been determined not to be confidential. However, any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B  Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3( g) Sensitive Questions 6 1 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN also includes plants that manufacture fiberglass for liquid and air filtration. However, the majority of the plants (~ 90%) manufacture fiberglass for building insulation. None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP and 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN are wool fiberglass manufacturing plants. 1 The SIC code for the respondents affected by the standards is SIC ( United States Standard Industrial Classification) 3296 which corresponds to the NAICS ( The North American Industry Classification System) 327993.

4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items These standards require affected facilities to maintain all records, including reports and notifications for at least five years. This is consistent with the General Provisions as applied to the standards. EPA believes that the five year records retention requirement is consistent with the part 70 permit program and the five year statute of limitations on which the permit program is based. Also, the retention of records for five years would allow EPA to establish the compliance history of a source and any pattern of compliance for purposes of determining the appropriate level of enforcement action. Historically, EPA has found that the most flagrant violators frequently have violations extending beyond the five years. EPA would be prevented from pursuing the worst violators due to the destruction or nonexistence of records if records were retained for less than five years.

All data in this ICR that is recorded and/ or reported is required by 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP and/ or 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN. A source subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP and/ or 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN must comply with the notifications, monitoring and recordkeeping requirements listed in the following exhibits.

Reports for 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP Construction/ reconstruction 60.7( a)( 1) 7 Reports for 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP Actual startup 60.7( a)( 3)

Initial performance test 60.8( d)

Physical or operational change 60.7( a)( 4)

Initial performance test results 60.8( a)

Semiannual reports of exceedances of control device operating parameters 60.684( d)

Reports for 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN Applicability 63.9( a), 63.1389( a)( 1 3)

Construction/ reconstruction 63.9( b)( 3) and ( 4), 63.1389( a)( 4)

Actual startup 63.9( b)( 2) and ( 4)

Special compliance requirements 63.9( d), 63.1389( a)( 5)

Initial performance test 63.9( e), 63.1389( a)( 6)

Continuous monitoring system notifications 63.9( g)

Compliance status 63.9( h), 63.1389( a)( 7)

Request for extension of compliance, adjustments to time periods, and changes in information 63.9( c), ( i) and ( j), 63.43 Operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan 63.6( e)( 1)( e)( 2), 63.1383( a)

Report of performance test results 63.10( d)( 2), 63.1386( b)

Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans and reports 63.6( e)( 3), 63.10( d)( 5), 63.1386( c)

Excess emissions 63.1386( e)

A source must maintain the following records: 8 Recordkeeping for 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP Startups, shutdowns, malfunctions, periods where the continuous monitoring system is inoperative. 60.7( b)

Records are required to be retained for 2 of Years. 60.7( f)

Continuous measurements of control device operating parameters 60.684( d)

Recordkeeping for 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN General recordkeeping requirements ( e. g., startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions including process equipment, air pollution control equipment, maintenance performed, and actions taken outside the scope of the existing plans) 63.10( b)( 2), 63.1386( d)

Continuous measurements of control device operating parameters:  Bag leak detection system alarms  ESP parameter values used to measure performance  Air temperature above the molten glass in a cold top furnace  Uncontrolled glass melting furnace parameter values to measure performance  The formulation of each binder patch and the LOI and density for each product manufactured  Process parameter level( s) for RS and FA manufacturing lines that use process modifications to comply with the emission limits  Scrubber pressure drop, scrubbing liquid flow rate, and any chemical additive  Incinerator operating temperature and the results from periodic inspection of incinerator components  Glass pull rate 63.1386( d)( 2)( i ix)

( ii) Respondent Activities 9 Respondent Activities Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate continuous monitoring system for 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN sources. Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate CMS for pressure drop and liquid supply pressure for wet scrubber for 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP sources.

Perform initial performance test. Methods 1 5, 316 or 318, method for determining LOI, method for determining free formaldehyde content of resin, and method for the determination of product density are used for 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN sources. Reference Method 5E for particulates is used 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP sources. All tests are repeated if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

5. The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and 10 Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information.

Agency Activities Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports, and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Air Facility System ( AFS).

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated. Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard. Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into the Air Facility System ( AFS) which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance. AFS is EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance and annual emission inventory data for more than 100,000 industrial and government owned plants. EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and State regulatory agencies, EPA Regional Offices and EPA Headquarters. EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP must be retained by the owner or operator for two years. The records required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN must be retained by the owner or operator for five years.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility 11 There are no small businesses affected by this regulation.

5( d) Collection Schedule The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 1: Average Annual Burden of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, NSPS for Wool Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP) and Table 2: Average Annual Burden of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, NESHAP for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN).

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection Tables 1 and 2 document the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for the subparts included in this ICR. The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified. Responses to this information collection are mandatory. The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP is estimated to be 2,288 hours. The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN is estimated to be 15,928 hours. The total number of labor hours for both subparts is 18,216. These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NSPS and NESHAP programs, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs This ICR uses the following labor rates: $ 89.94 per hour for Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $ 61.66 per hour for Technical labor, and $ 38.39 per hour for Clerical labor. These rate( s) are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 2002, " Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and industry group." The rates are 12 from column 1, " Total compensation." The rates have been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

Managerial $ 89.94 ($ 42.83 + 110%) Technical $ 61.66 ($ 29.36 + 110%) Clerical $ 38.39 ($ 18.28 + 110%)

For 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN, managerial and administrative labor hours were estimated to be approximately 5% and 10% of the estimated technical labors respectively. For 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP, only technical hours are used to satisfy the recordkeeping and reporting requirements since this standard is older and the ICR is more simplistic.

( ii) Estimating Capital/ Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs The capital startup costs and operations and maintenance ( O& M) costs for 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP are associated with the particulate matter monitoring equipments. The capital startup costs are one time costs when the facility becomes subject to the standard. Because no new sources are anticipated for this source category over the next three years, the capital startup costs are zero. The annual O& M costs associated with the particulate monitoring equipment are $ 16,500.

The capital and O& M costs for 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN are associated with baghouse leak detection monitoring, furnace temperature monitoring, and formaldehyde emission monitoring. The capital/ startup costs are one time costs when a facility becomes subject to the standard. Because no new sources are anticipated for this source category over the next three years, the capital startup costs are zero. O& M costs for baghouse leak detection monitoring are estimated at $ 500 per year per baghouse. There are no O& M costs associated with furnace temperature monitors or formaldehyde emissions monitoring.

( iii) Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs 13 2 In order to calculate O& M costs for 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPP, the estimates provided in column F were not based on the number of respondents but instead on the total number continuous monitoring devices that exist within the industry. For example, we estimate that there are 20 baghouses used within the wool fiberglass manufacturing industry. Some respondents may have more than one baghouse located at their facility. NSPS for Wool Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP) Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs ( A) Continuous Monitoring Device ( B) Capital/ Startu p Cost for One Respondent ( C) Number of New Respondents ( D) Total Capital/ Startu p Cost, ( B X C) ( E) Annual O& M Costs for One Respondent ( F) Number of Respondents with O& M ( G) Total O& M, ( E X F)

Particulate Matter Monitoring $ 15,000 0 $ 0 $ 16,500 29 $ 478,500 NESHAP for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN) Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs ( A)

Continuous Monitoring Device ( B)

Capital/ Startu p Cost for One Respondent ( C)

Number of New Respondents ( D)

Total Capital/ Startu p Cost, ( B X C) ( E)

Annual O& M Costs for One Respondent ( F)

Number of Respondents with O& M2 ( G)

Total O& M, ( E X F)

Baghouse Leak Detection $ 9,100 0 0 $ 500 20 $ 10,000 Furnace Temperature Monitoring $ 1,500 0 0 $ 0 15 $ 0 Formaldehyde Emission Monitoring $ 15,000 0 0 $ 0 50 $ 0 Because there are no new sources expected over the next three years, there are no capital 14 costs associated with either 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP, or 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN. This is the sum of the totals of column D in the two tables above. These costs are shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( a), Total annualized capital/ startup costs.

The total operation and maintenance ( O& M) costs for this ICR are $ 488,500. This is the sum of the totals of column G in the two tables above. These costs are shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( b), Total annual costs ( O& M).

The total respondent costs in block 14 have been calculated as the addition of the capital/ startup costs, and the annual operation and maintenance costs. The average annual cost for capital/ startup and operation and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR are estimated to be $ 488,500. This cost is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. The numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83 I form are rounded to show the cost in thousands of dollars.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of the reported information. Publication and distribution of the information are part of the AFS program. Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur as part of the periodic inspection of sources, which is part of EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program.

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR for 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP is estimated to be $ 5,055. The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR for 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN is estimated to be $ 19,523. This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate at a GS 12, Step 1, times a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses for a total of $ 39.49. These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) " 2003 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Tables 3: Average Annual EPA Resource Requirement, NSPS for Wool Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP) and Table 4: NESHAP for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN). For 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN, managerial and administrative labor hours were estimated to be approximately 5% and 10% of the estimated technical labors respectively.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Approximately 32 and 29 sources are currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP and 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN respectively. We estimate that no additional sources per year will become subject to either regulation in the next three years. 15 Respondent Universe and Number of Responses Per Year Regulation Citation ( A) Average Number of New Respondents per Year ( B) Number of Reports for New Sources ( C) Number of Existing Respondents ( D) Number of Reports for Existing Sources ( F) Number of Respondents that keep records but do not submit reports ( E) Total Annual Responses = ( AxB)+( CxD)+ F 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP 0 5 32 2 0 64 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN 0 8 29 4 0 116 The number of total respondents for both 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP and 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN is 61. This number is the sum of column A and column C of the Respondent Universe and Number of Responses Per Year table. This represents the number of existing sources plus the number of new sources averaged over the three year period ( i. e., the total of the number of new respondents over the three year period divided by three years). It is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( a), Number of respondents.

The number of Total Annual Responses for both 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP and 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN is 180. This is the number in column E of the Respondent Universe and Number of Responses Per Year table above. It is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( b), Total annual responses.

The total annual labor costs for 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP is $ 141,078. The total annual labor costs for 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN is $ 969,473. The total annual labor costs for both standards are equal to $ 1,110,553. This number is not shown on the OMB 83 I form. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NSPS for Wool Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP) and Table 2: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN).

Note that the total annual capital and O& M costs to the regulated entity are $ 488,500. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. These costs are detailed in Section 6( b)( iii), Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs. 16 6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for both the Agency and the respondents appear in the attached tables 1 thru 4. A summary of the bottom line burden hours and cost appears below.

Industry Burden Agency Burden Capital Costs O& M Costs Hours Dollars Hours Dollars Dollars Dollars 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart PPP 2,288 141,078 128 5,055 0 478,500 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart NNN 15,928 969,473 507 19,523 0 10,000 Total 18,216 1,110,553 635 24,578 0 488,500 6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The decrease in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to an adjustment. The adjustment decrease in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to the fact that all performance testing under 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN was conducted before the June 14, 2002 compliance dates, three years from the promulgation of the standards. Thus, all performance testing, which makes up a significant portion of the burden associated with 40 CFR subpart NNN, occurred during the previously approved ICR time period. Existing sources subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN should only have to meet the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the standard for this ICR period.

6( g) Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 101 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers 17 for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number OECA 2003 0057, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N. W., Washington, D. C. The EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center is ( 202) 566 1514. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number ( OECA 2003 0057) and OMB Control Number ( 2060 0114) in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information.


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 7, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38950-38953]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16552]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0677; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-075-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 727 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Model 727 airplanes. This proposed AD would require inspections
for scribe lines in the fuselage skin at skin lap joints and butt
joints, the skin at certain external approved repairs, the skin around
external features such as antennas, and the skin at decals and
fairings; and related investigative and corrective actions if
necessary. This proposed AD results from reports of scribe lines found
at skin lap joints and butt joints, around external repairs and
antennas, and at locations where external decals had been cut. We are
proposing this AD to detect and correct scribe lines, which can develop
into fatigue cracks in the skin and cause rapid decompression of the
airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 23, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6577; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0677;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-075-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received reports of scribe-line-related cracking on 2 Model
727 airplanes. One report was on a 727-100 airplane with 44,171 flight
cycles. The crack was near a repair and caused rapid decompression of
the airplane. Another report was on a 727-100 airplane with 51,195
flight cycles. The crack was at station 1090-1110, stringer 4L lap
joint. This crack also caused rapid decompression of the airplane. This
condition, if not corrected, could result in fatigue cracks developing
in the skin at scribe line locations. Fatigue cracks, if not corrected,
could grow large and cause rapid decompression of the airplane.

Related ADs

    This proposed AD is similar to four existing ADs. AD 2010-05-13,
Amendment 39-16223 (75 FR 13225, March 19, 2010), applies to Boeing
Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and, -500 series airplanes. AD
2007-19-07, Amendment 39-15198 (72 FR 60244, October 24, 2007), applies
to certain Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, and, -200CB series airplanes.
AD 2009-24-08, Amendment 39-16096 (74 FR 62217, November 27, 2009)
applies to certain Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and, -300ER
series airplanes. AD 2010-06-16, Amendment 39-16241 (75 FR 12670, March
17, 2010) applies to certain Boeing Model 767 series airplanes. Those
ADs require inspections to detect scribe lines in the fuselage skin at
certain lap joints, around decal locations, external repair doublers,
and other areas; and related investigative/corrective actions if
necessary. Those actions resulted from reports of fuselage skin cracks
adjacent to the skin lap joints on airplanes that had scribe lines.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-53A0233, dated
February 19, 2010. This service bulletin describes procedures for
detailed inspections to detect scribe lines along applicable skin lap
joints, skin butt joints, external approved repairs, external features,
decals, and fairings. This service bulletin specifies removing paint
and sealant from affected areas before the initial detailed inspection.
The compliance times for the initial detailed inspections range for
certain airplane configurations from 30,000 to 60,000 total accumulated
flight cycles (depending on the inspection location), or within up to
36 months after the date of this service bulletin, whichever occurs
later. For certain other airplane configurations, the initial detailed
inspections range between 6 months and 24 months after the date of this
service bulletin.
    This service bulletin specifies related investigative actions that
include performing low or high frequency eddy current or ultrasonic
inspections of the scribe lines to detect cracks, and this service
bulletin specifies corrective actions as either repairing scribe lines
and cracks or contacting Boeing for repair instructions and doing the
repair.
    This service bulletin specifies repairing scribe lines before
further flight, except when a limited return to service (LRTS) program
for qualifying scribe lines would allow return to service for a limited
period before scribe lines are repaired. The LRTS program includes
repetitive inspections to detect cracks where scribe lines are found.
To qualify for an LRTS program, scribe lines must meet certain criteria
based on their depth and location. This service bulletin specifies
contacting Boeing for final repair instructions, which would eliminate
the need for the repetitive inspections of the LRTS program. The
repetitive interval for the LRTS program ranges from 800 to 9,000
flight cycles, depending on the depth and location of the scribe lines
and the configuration of the airplane.
    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-53A0233, dated February 19, 2010,
notes that certain inspections would not be required under any of the
following conditions:
     The airplane had never been stripped or repainted.
     The airplane had never been stripped or repainted under
the wing-to-body fairings.
     The airplane has never had any decals installed in
inspection areas since delivery.
     The existing repairs on the airplane span at least 3 rows
above/forward and 3 rows below/aft of potential scribe lines on lap
joints and butt joints.
    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-53A0233, dated February 19, 2010,
specifies submitting the inspection results to Boeing.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type
designs. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions
specified in the service information described previously, except as
discussed under ``Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service
Bulletin.'' The proposed AD would also require sending the inspection
results to the manufacturer.

Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin

    The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for
instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD
would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
     Using a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have
authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 234 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                                 Table--Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of  U.S.-
       Action              Work hours        Average labor rate           Parts           Cost per product         registered            Fleet cost
                                                  per hour                                                          airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Inspection       Up to 320 hours                   $85                    $0         Up to $27,200                   234     Up to $6,364,800.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2010-0677; Directorate Identifier
2010-NM-075-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by August 23, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 727, 727C, 727-
100, 727-100C, 727-200, and 727-200F series airplanes, certificated
in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-
53A0233, dated February 19, 2010.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53:
Fuselage.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from reports of scribe lines found at skin
lap joints, butt joints, around external repairs and antennas, and
at locations where external decals had been cut. The Federal
Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to detect and correct
scribe lines, which can develop into fatigue cracks in the skin and
cause rapid decompression of the airplane.

Compliance

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

Inspection

    (g) At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-53A0233, dated
February 19, 2010 (``the service bulletin''), except as provided in
paragraphs (h) and (i) Of this AD, do detailed inspections for
scribe lines of skin lap joints, skin butt joints, around external
approved repairs, external features, and fairings, and at locations
where external decals may have been cut, and do all applicable
related investigative and corrective actions at the times specified
in the service bulletin, by accomplishing all actions specified in
the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin, except as
provided by paragraph (j) of this AD.

    Note 1:  The inspection exemptions noted in paragraph 1.E. of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-53A0233, dated February 19, 2010,
apply to this AD.

Exceptions to Service Bulletin Specifications

    (h) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-53A0233, dated
February 19, 2010, specifies a compliance time after ``the original
issue date on this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance
within the specified compliance time after the effective date of
this AD.
    (i) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-53A0233, dated
February 19, 2010, specifies to calculate the flight-cycle time for
an airplane ``as of the original issue date on this service
bulletin,'' this AD requires the airplane flight-cycle time to be
calculated as of the effective date of this AD.
    (j) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-53A0233, dated
February 19, 2010, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate
action, accomplish applicable actions before further flight using a
method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (l) of this AD.

Report

    (k) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (k)(1) or
(k)(2) of this AD: Submit a report of positive crack findings of the
inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD. Operators may use
the reporting form contained in Appendixes B and C, as applicable,
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-53A0233, dated February 19,
2010. Send the report to Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707,
Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. The report must contain, at a
minimum, the inspection results, a description of any discrepancies
found, the airplane serial number, and the number of flight cycles
and flight hours on the airplane. Under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection
requirements contained in this AD and has assigned OMB Control
Number 2120-0056.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (l)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification 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:
Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (425)
917-6590. Information may be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 29, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-16552 Filed 7-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 183 (Friday, September 24, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53024-53025]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20648]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0430; FRL-9060-01-R4]

Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; Minor Revisions to Cotton
Ginning Operations Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the North Carolina State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submitted by the State of North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality, via a letter dated
April 13, 2021, and received by EPA on April 14, 2021. This revision
contains minor clarifying and typographical edits to North Carolina's
cotton ginning operations rule. EPA is proposing to approve these
changes pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 25, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2021-0430 at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. 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. 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, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pearlene Williams, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-9144. Ms. Williams can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    On April 14, 2021, the State of North Carolina submitted changes to
the North Carolina SIP for EPA approval. EPA is proposing to approve
these changes to 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC)
Subchapter 02D,\1\ Rule .0542--Control of Particulate Emissions from
Cotton Ginning Operations which establishes control requirements for
particulate emissions from cotton ginning operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the table of North Carolina regulations federally
approved into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.1770(c), 15A NCAC 02D is referred
to as ``Subchapter 2D Air Pollution Control Requirements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Analysis of North Carolina's SIP Revision

    North Carolina's SIP revision contains minor clarifying and
typographical edits to the text of Rule .0542.\2\ For example, the
revision adjusts the citation format for cited rules; corrects several
typographical errors; adds text clarifying the meaning of certain words
and phrases; and corrects a citation error. EPA has preliminarily
determined that these changes do not interfere with attainment and
maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards or any other
applicable requirement of the Act because they are minor in nature. For
these reasons, EPA is proposing to approve the changes to this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See North Carolina's April 14, 2021 SIP revision at pp. 82-
86 (of the pdf file available in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking) to review a redline version of the rule showing all of
the proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory

text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference 15A NCAC Subchapter 02D, Rule .0542--Control of Particulate
Emissions from Cotton Ginning Operations, with a state-effective date
of November 1, 2020. These changes are proposed to make minor
clarifying and typographical edits to the rule. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the
person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of
this preamble for more information).

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the aforementioned revisions to Rule
.0542--Control of Particulate Emissions from Cotton Ginning Operations.
EPA is proposing to approve these changes because they are consistent
with the CAA.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided they meet the criteria of the CAA. This proposed action merely
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: September 20, 2021.
John Blevins,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2021-20648 Filed 9-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 56514-56515]
[DOCID:fr27se06-80]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-459-000]

Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Application

September 21, 2006.
    Take notice that on September 15, 2006, Transwestern Pipeline
Company, LLC (Transwestern), 5444 Westheimer Road, Houston, Texas
77056-5306, filed an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas
Act (NGA) and parts 157 and 284 of the Commission's regulations,
seeking authority to construct and operate: (i) Approximately 25 miles
of 36-inch diameter pipeline loop in two segments on its existing San
Juan Lateral in San Juan and McKinley Counties, New Mexico (San Juan
2008 Expansion Project), (ii) a new 259-mile pipeline consisting of 36-
inch and 42-inch diameter pipe extending southward from Transwestern's
existing mainline near Ash Fork in Yavapai County, Arizona through
Coconino and Maricopa Counties, Arizona and terminating at the
beginning of El Paso Natural Gas Company's (El Paso) East Valley
Lateral near the City of Coolidge in Pinal County, Arizona (Phoenix
Pipeline), and (iii) customer laterals, meter stations, and ancillary
facilities (Phoenix Pipeline Project). In addition, Transwestern seeks
authority to acquire an undivided interest in the East Valley Lateral
and to use such facilities to render service in conjunction with the
Phoenix Pipeline Project. The projects are collectively known as the
Phoenix Expansion Project, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open for public
inspection. These filings are available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Transwestern states that the purpose of the Phoenix Expansion
Project is to provide up to 500,000 dth per day of firm natural gas
transportation service from the San Juan Basin to markets in the
Phoenix area. Transwestern states that it has entered into binding
precedent agreements with 5 shippers for 370,000 dth per day of this
capacity. The total estimated costs of the Phoenix Pipeline Project and
San Juan 2008 Expansion are $597,737,942 and $62,377,862, respectively.
Transwestern seeks approval of its proposal to provide service on the
Phoenix Pipeline Project under new Rate Schedules FTS-5 and ITS-2 and
seeks a pre-determination that the costs of the San Juan 2008 Expansion
costs may be rolled-in to its existing rates under Rate Schedule FTS-4.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Stephen T. Veatch, Senior Director, Certificates and Tariffs,
Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC, 5444 Westheimer Road, Houston,
Texas 77056-5306;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    On November 22, 2005, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects
granted Transwestern's request to utilize the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF06-4-000
to staff activities involving Transwestern's expansion project. Now, as
of the filing of Transwestern's application on September 15, 2006, the
NEPA Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time
forward, Transwestern's proceeding will be conducted in Docket No.
CP06-459-000, as noted in the caption of this Notice.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.

Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    Comment Date: October 12, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-15817 Filed 9-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: Janet Whitehurst

Ecolab, Inc.

Docket Number 2012-0945

Petition Number IN-10528

	EPA has received a pesticide petition IN-10528 from Ecolab, Inc., EPA Company # 1677,  370 N. Wabasha Street, St. Paul, MN 55102 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.

   1. To establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for FD&C Yellow No. 5 (Tartrazine), CAS No. 1934-21-0 for use as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy processing equipment and food processing equipment and utensils in accordance with 40 CFR §180.940(a).  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. Not applicable to this inert ingredient petition.

	2. Analytical method. Not applicable to this inert ingredient petition.

	3. Magnitude of residues. Not applicable to this inert ingredient petition.

B. Toxicological Profile

      1. Acute toxicity. FD&C Yellow No. 5 is of low acute toxicity, and is not a dermal-irritant or a sensitizer.  The acute oral LD50 in mice was 12,750 mg/kg bw, and the LD50 in rats was >2000 mg/kg bw. It is approved by FDA as a colorant added directly to food, drugs and cosmetics.

	2. Genotoxicity. In the Agency's previous reassessment of FD&C Yellow No. 5 they reported that it is not mutagenic in the standard Ames assay with or without metabolic activation.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. In previous reassessment of tolerance exemptions, the Agency's review of developmental and reproductive toxicity of  FD&C Yellow No. 5 the noted there were no harmful effects on prenatal development and no adverse reproductive effects.

	4. Subchronic toxicity.  See the discussion of chronic toxicity below.

	5. Chronic toxicity. The Agency reported that a chronic oral toxicity study in dogs showed no effects at the highest dose tested (500 mg/kg day).  The Agency also noted that there was no evidence of carcinogenicity observed in studies with rats and mice.

      6. Animal metabolism. FD&C Yellow No. 5 is poorly absorbed and is primarily excreted unchanged in the urine. 	       7. Metabolite toxicology. There are no metabolites identified of toxicological concern.  	       8. Endocrine disruption. EPA did not report having any available information to suggest that FD&C Yellow No. 5 would have any endocrine effects.

C. Aggregate Exposure. In the Agency's reassessment they did not use a reference dose and safety factor approach to their risk assessment for FD&C Yellow No. 5.  It was determined that a qualitative assessment for all pathways of human exposure (food, drinking water, and residential) was appropriate given the low toxicity and low human health concerns associated with the uses as an FDA color additive and pesticide inert ingredient.

1. Dietary exposure. In the Agency's reassessment of FD&C Yellow No. 5 exemptions, the Agency determined that dietary exposure to FD&C Yellow No. 5 occurs primarily from foods where it is used as a color additive.  The Agency estimated that based on pesticide use rate information, coupled with the weight fraction of colorant used, that dietary exposures from use as a pesticide inert ingredient were several orders of magnitude lower than both the exposures from the FDA approved uses and the established ADI.

i. Food.  Primary sources for exposure to FD&C Yellow No. 5 from food will come from its use as a direct food additive.  Additional sources of exposure, including use as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations, will be relatively minimal.

	ii. Drinking water. In the Agency's reassessment of FD&C Yellow No. 5 tolerance exemptions, the Agency concluded that any estimated environmental concentrations were very low and potential drinking water exposure was several orders of magnitude lower than the current ADI.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. Residential exposure could come from use of FD&C Yellow No. 5 in consumer products, including pesticide products and cosmetics.   Given the low content (less than 0.1%) of FD&C Yellow No. 5 in pesticide products, the exposure from pesticide products will be minimal.

D. Cumulative Effects EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding for FD&C Yellow No. 5 or any metabolite(s).

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. As part of the FQPA tolerance reassessment process,  EPA has previously concluded that taking into consideration all available information on FD&C Yellow No. 5, including the extensive toxicity database in which no adverse effects were noted, low toxicity, lack of risk concerns and low exposures, that there was reasonable certainty of no harm to all population subgroups as a result of aggregate exposure to FD&C Yellow No. 5  from dietary and other non-occupational sources of exposure from use in pesticide products.  The Agency determined that the established exemptions from the requirement for a tolerance for FD&C Yellow No. 5 for current uses met the safety standards under the FQPA amendments to section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA. The expansion of the tolerance exemption to include uses cited at 40 CFR § 180.940(a) would not change this determination.

	2. Infants and children. EPA previously determined that the established exemptions from a requirement for a tolerance for FD&C Yellow No. 5 met the safety standards under the FQPA amendments to section 408(b)(2)(C) of the FFDCA, and that there was a reasonable certainty of no harm for infants and children. The safety determination for infants and children considers factors of the toxicity, use practices, and environmental behavior noted above for the general population, but also takes into account the possibility of increased dietary exposure due to the specific consumption patterns of infants and children, as well as the possibility of increased susceptibility to the toxic effects of FD&C Yellow No. 5 residues in this population subgroup. The expansion of the tolerance exemption to include uses cited at 40 CFR § 180.940(a) would not change this determination.

F. International Tolerances Currently there are no Codex MRLs established for FD&C Yellow No. 5.  JECFA has established an ADI of 7.5 mg/kg bw/day for FD&C Yellow No. 5.