[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 116 (Monday, June 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27950-27951]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12709]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Office of
Dispute Resolution Procedures for Protests and Contact Disputes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)

approval to renew a previously approved information collection. 14 CFR
part 17 sets forth procedures for filing solicitation protests and
contract claims in the FAA's Office of Dispute Resolution for
Acquisition. The regulations seek factual and legal information from
protesters or claimants primarily through written submissions.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by August 18, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda
Thompson, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 800 Independence
Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronda Thompson by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0632.
    Title: Office of Dispute Resolution Procedures for Protests and
Contact Disputes.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: 14 CFR 17.15 and 17.25 provide the procedures for
filing protests and contract claims with the Office of Dispute
Resolution for Acquisition. The regulations seek factual and legal
information from protesters or claimants primarily through written
submissions. The information sought by the regulations is used by the
ODRA, as well as the opposing parties: (1) To gain a clear
understanding as to the facts and the law underlying the dispute; and
(2) to provide a basis for applying dispute resolution techniques.
    Respondents: Approximately 45 protestors or claimants.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 20.5 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 923 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 5, 2017.
Ronda L. Thompson,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer Performance, Policy, and
Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2017-12709 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2605-2606]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00805]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR22-5-001.
    Applicants: Eagle Ford Midstream, LP.
    Description: Submits tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)+(g): Amended
Section 311 Rate Approval to be effective 11/12/2021.
    Filed Date: 1/7/2022.
    Accession Number: 20220107[not]5076.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/28/22.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/28/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-479-000.
    Applicants: Adelphia Gateway, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Adelphia Negotiated Rate
filing 1-10-22 to be effective 1/10/2022.
    Filed Date: 1/10/22.
    Accession Number: 20220110-5100.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/24/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-480-000.
    Applicants: Gas Transmission Northwest LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Report of Refunds--Coyote Springs
Lateral IT Revenue (Nov. 2020-Oct. 2021) to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 1/10/22.
    Accession Number: 20220110-5113.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/24/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings

must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but
intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-158-002.
    Applicants: Rover Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Rover Pipeline LLC submits tariff filing per 154.203:
Revision to RVR Cost & Revenue Study in Compliance with CP15-93-000 et
al. to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 01/24/22.
    Accession Number: 2022011-5040.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/24/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-468-001.
    Applicants: Northern Border Pipeline Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Negotiated Rate Agreement--Sequent
TL372F Errata to be effective 1/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 1/10/22.
    Accession Number: 20220110-5172.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/24/22.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 11, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-00805 Filed 1-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, DC  20460

OFFICE OF PREVENTION,

PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

Date:		14 January 2009

Subject:	Dimethomorph.  ADDENDUM to the Human Health Risk Assessment for
the Proposed Food/Feed Use of the Fungicide (Associated with Section 3
Registration) on Succulent Lima Beans, Ginseng, Grapes and Turnip Tops.

um™

From:		William T. Drew, Chemist/Risk Assessor

		Risk Integration Minor Use and Emergency Response Branch (RIMUERB)

		Registration Division (RD), 7505P

	and

		Karlyn J. Middleton, Toxicologist

		Registration Action Branch 2 (RAB2)

		Health Effects Division (HED), 7509P

Through:	Richard A. Loranger, PhD, Senior Scientist

		Christina Swartz, Branch Chief

		RAB2/HED, 7509P

To:		Sidney Jackson and Daniel Rosenblatt, RM Team 5

		RIMUERB/RD, 7505P

SUBJECT ACTION

	This addendum to the 6 November 2008 risk assessment document (RAD) for
dimethomorph (D349253) was created in response to the Office of General
Counsel’s request that HED clarify the rationale for reduction of the
FQPA Safety Factor from 10x to 1x (in light of effects seen in the
developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits), and to document a
revision of the subchronic/chronic toxicity profile table (to reflect
the upgrade of the reproductive toxicity study to “acceptable”).
New text is shown in bold type.

Developmental Toxicity Studies   TC \l3 "3.3.3	Developmental Toxicity
Studies (Refer to the 6 November 2008 RAD, Section 3.3.3)

	In a developmental toxicity study in rats, reductions in body weight,
body weight gain, and food consumption were seen in maternal animals at
the LOAEL of 160 mg/kg/day (NOAEL = 60 mg/kg/day).  Increased
post-implantation loss was also seen at 160 mg/kg/day.  In a
developmental toxicity study in rabbits, increased incidence of abortion
was observed at the LOAEL of 650 mg/kg/day (NOAEL = 300 mg/kg/day).  No
effects were observed in pups at doses of up to 650 mg/kg/day.  Although
post-implantation loss was reported in the offspring LOAEL (rats), and
abortions were reported in the maternal LOAEL (rabbits), it is difficult
to distinguish whether the observed effects are a result of maternal
toxicity or offspring toxicity.  As a result, it is assumed that the
effects could potentially be a result of toxicity to either dams or
fetuses.  Therefore, there is no evidence of increased qualitative
sensitivity in the developmental studies.

Reproductive Toxicity Study   TC \l3 "3.3.3	Developmental Toxicity
Studies (Refer to the 6 November 2008 RAD, Section 3.3.4)  TC \l3 "3.3.4
Reproductive Toxicity Study

	In a multi-generation reproductive toxicity study, the P generation
animals were mated in a one-to-one ratio, and given the test material
for 15 weeks before they were mated.  Selection of the parents for the
F1 generation was made shortly after weaning on day 21 post-partum.  The
P1 animals were mated when they were approximately 21 weeks of age,
while the F1 generation was mated at about 15 weeks of age.

	No clinical signs or necropsy findings which could be associated with
administration of the test material were noted at any dose level in
parental animals.  At 1000 ppm, P generation females weighed
consistently less than controls throughout the 15 week pre-mating period
(p<0.05).  Statistically significant reductions in food consumption were
also noted in 1000 ppm females during the pre-mating period.  In F1
females, body weights were slightly lower in all the dose groups but
differences were not statistically significant.  At the 1000 ppm level,
during several intervals of the pre-mating period, female weight gain
was reduced (p<0.05).  No effects were apparent in males of the P or F1
generations.  For parental systemic toxicity, the NOAEL was 300 ppm, and
the LOAEL was 1000 ppm, based upon decreased body weights and body
weight gains.

	Reproductive indices were not affected by treatment at any dose level
or mating.  The percentage of pups with incisor eruption was noted at
the 1000 ppm dose level in the F1, F2a and F2b generations with
non-significant delays observed at the lower dose levels.  During the
second mating of the F1 generation to produce the F2b generation, a
large number of inseminated females failed to deliver.  This finding
appeared to occur in a dose-related manner at all dose levels but was
not apparent during other matings.  It should be noted that the prostate
gland was apparently affected by the test material in the dog chronic
feeding study, and the organ was not weighed in the chronic rat study.
No organ weight data were presented for the prostate gland in this
reproduction study but no dose-related histopathology data were apparent
in this study.  For reproductive toxicity, the NOAEL was 300 ppm, and
the LOAEL was 1000 ppm, based upon decreased incisor eruption on day 10
postpartum.

	This study was originally classified as unacceptable due to several
deficiencies.  However, the petitioner addressed the deficiencies, and
the reproductive toxicity study has been upgraded to acceptable.

FQPA Safety Factor for Infants and Children   TC \l3 "3.3.3
Developmental Toxicity Studies (Refer to the 6 November 2008 RAD,
Section 3.4)  TC \l2 "3.4	Safety Factor for Infants and Children

	Previous HED risk assessments cited the lack of environmental fate data
for dimethomorph in consideration of the FQPA Safety Factor.  HED notes
that the required environmental fate data have been received, and have
been incorporated into subsequent risk assessments (including the most
recent).

	Additionally:

1. The developmental and reproductive toxicity data did not indicate
increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility of rats or rabbits
to in utero and/or post-natal exposure to dimethomorph,

2. there is no evidence of neurotoxicity,

3. the dietary (food only) exposure assessment did not indicate a
concern for potential risk to infants and children, even though
unrefined field study data are used, resulting in an overestimate of
dietary exposure, and

4. there are currently no registered residential uses for dimethomorph.

A.2	Toxicity Profiles TC \l2 "A.2	Toxicity Profiles

Table A.2.2	Subchronic, Chronic and Other Toxicity Profile for
Dimethomorph.

Guideline Number/ Study Type	MRID(s) [year]/ Classification/Doses
Results

870.3100

90-Day oral toxicity [dog]	42233908 [1991]

Acceptable/guideline

0, 150, 450, 1350 ppm

M: 0, 5, 15, 43 mg/kg/day

F: 0, 6, 15, 44 mg/kg/day	NOAEL = 15 mg/kg/day

LOAEL = 43 mg/kg/day based on decrease in the absolute and relative
weights of the prostate and possible threshold liver effects.

870.3150

90-Day oral toxicity [rat]	42233910 [1991]

Core minimum

0, 40, 200, 1000 ppm

M: 0, 2.9, 14.2, 73 mg/kg/day

F: 0, 3.2, 15.8, 82 mg/kg/day	NOAEL >73/82 [M/F] mg/kg/day

LOAEL was not established in this study, because the highest dose tested
produced no biologically significant effects.

870.3700a

Prenatal developmental

[rabbit]	42233918 [1989]

Unacceptable/core

supplemental [Initial rating]

0, 135, 300, 650 mg/kg/day	Maternal NOAEL = 300 mg/kg/day

LOAEL = 650 mg/kg/day based on an increased incidence of abortion
confirmed in a range-finding study.

Developmental NOAEL could not be determined.

LOAEL could not be determined.

870.3700b

Prenatal developmental [rabbit]	44175303

Acceptable

Information supplemental to MRID# 42233918	Maternal NOAEL = 300
mg/kg/day

LOAEL = 650 mg/kg/day based on an increased incidence of abortion
confirmed in a range-finding study.

Developmental NOAEL =650 mg/kg/day [highest dose tested].

LOAEL could not be determined - no effects observed at highest dose
tested.

870.3700c

Prenatal developmental

[rat]	42233919 [1989]

Unacceptable/core

supplemental [Initial rating]

0, 20, 60, 160 mg/kg/day	Maternal NOAEL = 60 mg/kg/day

LOAEL = 160 mg/kg/day based on reductions in food consumption, mean body
weights and body weight gain.

Developmental NOAEL could not be determined

LOAEL = could not be determined.

870.3700d

Prenatal developmental

[rat]	44175302

Acceptable

Information supplemental to MRID# 42233919	Maternal NOAEL = 60 mg/kg/day

LOAEL = 160 mg/kg/day based on reductions in food consumption, mean body
weights and body weight gain.

Developmental NOAEL = 60 mg/kg/day

LOAEL = 160 mg/kg/day based on the incidence of post implantation loss

870.3800

Reproduction and fertility effects

[rat]	42233920 [1990]

Unacceptable/core supplemental [Initial rating, subsequently upgraded to
acceptable/ guideline]

0, 100, 300, 1000 ppm	Parental/Systemic NOAEL = 300 ppm

LOAEL = 1000 ppm based on decreased body weights and body weight gains.

Reproductive NOAEL = 300 ppm

LOAEL = 1000 ppm based on decreased incisor eruption on day 10
postpartum.

Offspring NOAEL was not reported

LOAEL was not reported.

870.4100a

Chronic toxicity

[rat]	42233912 [1991]

Acceptable/guideline

0, 150, 450, 1350 ppm

M: 0, 9.4, 36.2, 99.9 mg/kg/day

F: 0, 11.9, 57.7, 157.8 mg/kg/day	NOAEL = 36.2/11.9 [M/F] mg/kg/day

LOAEL = 57.7/99.9 [M/F] mg/kg/day  based on decreased body weight and
increased incidence of arteritis in male rats and  decreased body weight
and significant increased incidence of "ground-glass" foci in the liver
in female rats.

870.4100b

Chronic toxicity [dog]

	42233911 [1991]

Acceptable/guideline

0, 150, 450, 1350 ppm

M: 0, 4.9, 14.7, 44.6 mg/kg/day

F: 0, 5.0, 15.7, 47.0 mg/kg/day	NOAEL = 14.7 mg/kg/day

LOAEL = 44.6mg/kg/day based on decreased prostate weight.

870.4200

Carcinogenicity

[rat]	42233916 [1991]

Acceptable/guideline

0, 200, 750, 20000 ppm

M: 0, 8.8, 33.9, 94.6 mg/kg/day

F: 0, 11.3, 46.3, 132.5 mg/kg/day	NOAEL [systemic] = 33.9/11.3 [M/F]
mg/kg/day

LOAEL [systemic] = 94.6/46.3 [M/F] mg/kg/day based on  decreased body
weight, gross and microscopic lesions in blood vessels, and liver
lesions in males and decreased body weight, gross and microscopic
lesions blood vessels, bone marrow hypercellularity, and liver lesions
in females.

There was no evidence of carcinogenicity

870.4300

Carcinogenicity

[mouse]	42233914 [1991]

Acceptable/guideline

0, 10, 100, 1000 mg/kg/day	NOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day

LOAEL [systemic] = 1000 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight gain in
males.

There was no evidence of carcinogenicity

Gene Mutation

870.5100a	42233921 [1985]

Acceptable	Negative for inducing reverse gene mutation in either
Salmonella his-mutants or E. coli trp-cells exposed beyond precipitating
concentrations [500 ug/plate], up to the limit dose, 5000 ug/plate,
w/without metabolic activation.

Gene Mutation

870.5100b	42233926 [1989]

Acceptable	Negative for inducing reverse gene mutation in Salmonella TA
strains and E. coli WP2 uvr A exposed, with/without activation, up to
5000 ug/plate.

In vitro mammalian cell gene mutation test

870.5300a	42233923 [1987]

Acceptable	Negative for inducing forward mutation at the
hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyl transferase locus in Chinese hamster
lung [V79] cells treated up to cytotoxic levels [230 ug/mL/-S9; 300
ug/mL/+S9].

In vitro mammalian cell gene mutation test

870.5300b	42233927 [1991]

Acceptable	Negative for inducing forward mutation at the
hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyl transferase [HGPRT] locus in Chinese
hamster lung [V79] exposed, with/without activation, up to cytotoxic
concentrations [180 ug/mL/-S9; 333 ug/mL/+S9].

In vitro mammalian chromosome aberration test

870.5375a	42233924 [1986]

Unacceptable	Reportedly positive for chromosome aberrations at the
highest doses tested [160 ug/mL/-S9; 170 ug/mL/+S9].

In vitro mammalian chromosome aberration test

870.5375b	42233925 [1987]

Acceptable	[Confirmatory repeat of Study LMP-180 C, MRID 422339-24].
Positive for increased chromosome aberrations at high doses [160
ug/mL/-S9; 170 ug/mL/+S9].

In vitro mammalian chromosome aberration test

870.5375c	42233928 [1991]

Acceptable	Presumptively [weakly] positive, but only in activated
cultures treated at the HDT, in human lymphocyte cultures treated up to
the highly toxic dose, 422 ug/mL; negative in the absence of activation
at all doses.

Mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test

870.5395a	42233930 [1991]

Acceptable	Negative for inducing micronuclei in bone marrow cells of
mice administered test article i.p.  up to severely toxic levels [200
mg/kg].

Mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test

870.5395b	42233931 [1989]

Acceptable	Negative for inducing micronuclei in bone marrow cells of
mice treated orally at the limit dose, 5000 mg/kg.

Mutagenicity - DNA damage/repair in vitro

870.5500	42233922 [1986]

Unacceptable	Reportedly negative for inducing unscheduled DNA synthesis
[as measured by liquid scintillation counting] in rat hepatocytes
cultured [for only 3 hours] at doses up to 250 ug/mL, a weakly cytotoxic
level.

Other Effects - Morphologic transformation of cells in culture

870.8800	42233929 [1986]

Acceptable	Negative for transformation in Syrian hamster embryo cells
treated, in the presence and absence of activation,  up to cytotoxic
concentrations [265 ug/mL/+S9; 50 ug/mL/-S9]

870.7485

Metabolism and pharmacokinetics

[rat]	42233932 [1994]

Acceptable

10 mg/kg single dose; 10 mg/kg 14-day repeated dose; 10 mg/kg 7-day
repeated dose; 500 mg/kg single dose	Oral administration of dimethomorph
results in rapid excretion into the urine and feces of rats.  For all
treatment protocols, most [80-90%] of the radiolabel administered was
excreted in the feces.  A considerably smaller amount [6-16%] was
excreted in the urine and only minimal levels [0.1-0.4%] were detected
in the organs and tissues.  Rapid absorption may be inferred by the
rapid excretion of metabolites in the urine and bile.  Saturation of
absorption following single high doses [500 mg/kg] was indicated by
large amounts [(50%] of radioactivity in the feces being associated with
parent compound.  For low- or high-dose treatment, urinary excretion in
female rats tended to be greater [up to 2-fold in low-dose rats] than
that of male rats.  Retention of dimethomorph or
[14C]-dimethomorph-derived radioactivity was generally (1% for most
tissues although the liver exhibited slightly higher levels [1.4%] and
higher levels in the gastrointestinal tract organs was due to
radioactivity in the lumenal contents.  Urinary metabolites resulted
from demethylation of the dimethoxyphenyl ring and oxidation of the
morpholine ring.  Biliary excretion exhibited first-order kinetics with
a low-dose [10 mg/kg] half-life of approximately 3 hours and a high-dose
[500 mg/kg] half-life of 11 hours for males and about 6 hours for
females.  Biliary metabolites accounted for most of the fecal excretion
following low-dose treatment.  The major biliary metabolites were
glucuronides of one and possibly two of the compounds produced by
demethylation of the dimethoxyphenyl ring.  The report provided a
proposed metabolic pathway for dimethomorph.

870.7600

Dermal penetration

[rat]	43917221 [1995]

Acceptable/guideline

:

\

n

:

D

Œ

Ø

kd¼

kd4

kdð

ਁ䠃愀϶H瑹犱{ࠀand 79.62 mg/kg was 104.1% and 92.1%,
respectively.  Majority of the radioactivity was found in skin swabs and
gauze wash [80.9 to 81.8%].  The percent of the dose in the skin
decreased with dose; at 7.73 mg/kg 17.5% and at 79.62 mg/kg 9.99%

Page   PAGE  2  of   NUMPAGES  6


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 218 (Friday, November 9, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55969]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24511]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0975]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Delaware River, Tacony, PA and
Palmyra, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the SR 73/Tacony-Palmyra Bridge which
carries SR 73 across the Delaware River, mile 107.2, between Tacony, PA
and Palmyra, NJ. The deviation is necessary to facilitate bridge
maintenance. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-
to-navigation position.

DATES: The deviation is effective from 6 a.m. through 6 p.m. on
November 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0975 is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Michael Thorogood, Bridge
Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-
6557, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Burlington County Bridge Commission,
owner and operator of the SR 73/Tacony-Palmyra Bridge which carries SR
73 across the Delaware River, mile 107.2, between Tacony, PA and
Palmyra, NJ, has requested a temporary deviation from the current
operating schedule to facilitate installation of a replacement
electrical festoon control cable of the double bascule span of the
drawbridge. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 50 feet above mean
high water in the closed position and unlimited vertical clearance
above mean high water in the open position.
    The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.716. Under
this temporary deviation, the bridge will be in the closed-to-
navigation position from 6 a.m. through 6 p.m. on November 20, 2018.
    The Delaware River is used by a variety of vessels including deep
draft commercial vessels, U.S. government and public vessels, small
commercial vessels, tug and barge traffic, and recreational vessels.
The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with
waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation
position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for
emergencies and there is no immediate alternative route for vessels
unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast
Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local
Notice and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their
transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: October 31, 2018.
Hal R. Pitts,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-24511 Filed 11-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 194 (Wednesday, October 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60664-60665]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25516]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF15-12-000]

Southeastern Power Administration; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on September 28, 2015, the Southeastern Power
Administration submitted a tariff filing: Cumberland 2015 Rate
Adjustment to be effective 10/1/2015.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on October 28, 2015.

    Dated: October 1, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25516 Filed 10-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 57574]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22987]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4081-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

Mississippi; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4081-DR), dated August 29, 2012, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 11, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Mississippi is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of August 29, 2012.

    Adams, Amite, George, Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, Lincoln,
Marion, Pearl River, Pike, Stone, Walthall, and Wilkinson Counties
for Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already designated for
Individual Assistance and debris removal and emergency protective
measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance,
under the Public Assistance program).
    Claiborne, Copiah, Covington, Franklin, Greene, Jefferson,
Jefferson Davis, Lamar, Lawrence, Newton, Perry, Smith, and Wayne
Counties for Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already designated
for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A
and B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-22987 Filed 9-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION - COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING OF PESTICIDE PETITION

EPA Registration Division (RD) Contact: [RD]

Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0049

Interregional Research Project No.4 (IR-4)

Pesticide Petition Number: 6E8505

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP# 6E8505) from Interregional Research Project No. 4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540 requesting, 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 by establishing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide oxathiapiprolin, 1-[4-[4-[5-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-isoxazolyl]-2-thiazolyl]-1 -piperidinyl]-2-[5-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-1-yl]-ethanone, in or on Cacao bean, bean at 0.10 parts per million (ppm), Cacao bean, roasted bean at 0.15ppm, Cacao bean, cocoa powder at 0.15 ppm, Cacao bean, chocolate at 0.15 ppm.

EPA proposes to use the oxathiapiprolin/citrus residue data with a proposed MRL tolerance of 0.06 ppm on citrus (RAC).  IR-4 is proposing that the 0.06 ppm oxathiapiprolin citrus MRL be used to support a U.S. oxathiapiprolin tolerance of 0.1 ppm on Cacao bean, bean and an established use pattern on the Orondis and Orondis OD product labels in the U.S.  The proposed MRL tolerance of 0.1 ppm on Cacao bean, bean is conservative since there is a higher surface area to mass ratio in citrus fruit (orange 7-8 cm wide; lemon 7-12 cm; grapefruit 10-15 cm) as compared to cacao fruit (15.2 to 25.4 cm long and 7.6 to 10.2 cm in diameter).  In addition, both of these commodities contain inedible peels that are not directly consumed.  Because cacao beans are processed into cocoa commodities, IR-4 also proposes oxathiapiprolin tolerances of 0.15 ppm for Cacao bean, roasted bean, 0.15 ppm for Cacao bean, cocoa powder and 0.15 ppm for Cacao bean, chocolate (based on maximum theoretical concentration factors, the ratio of the percent of dry matter in the processes commodity to the percent of dry matter in the RAC, given 40% dry matter for the cacao bean, 95% dry matter for the roasted bean, 97% dry matter for cocoa powder and 99% dry matter for chocolate).

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 support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. The metabolism of oxathiapiprolin is adequately understood to support the proposed tolerances. Studies in grape, lettuce and potato when treated at the label rates showed no significant metabolites. The metabolism of oxathiapiprolin in plants was similar regardless of the crop or the treatment regime. Oxathiapiprolin was the principle residue in most crop fractions at various sampling points up to crop maturity. The overall metabolism of oxathiapiprolin in rotated crops (cereals, root vegetables, leafy vegetables) was consistent with metabolism seen in the primary crops.

	2. Analytical method. Adequate analytical methodology, high-pressure liquid chromatography with MS/MS detection, is available for enforcement purposes.

	3. Magnitude of residues. Field trials to meet the United States requirements were carried out in orchards (citrus). The trials covered a wide range of locations, climates and soil types and the data obtained reflect the commercial use of the oxathiapiprolin-containing products in the major US crop growing regions.  The results of these field trials substantiate oxathiapiprolin as the major residue at harvest in the crop commodities. Oxathiapiprolin is likewise the relevant residue in processed commodities.

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  Based on EPA criteria, technical oxathiapiprolin is classified with an overall Toxicity Category IV (Tox Cat IV). This compound is considered a Tox Cat IV based on no observed for acute oral, dermal or inhalation toxicity up to the OPPTS testing guidelines limit dose levels tested. Oxathiapiprolin is not an eye or skin irritant and it is not a dermal sensitizer.

No evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in an acute neurotoxicity study conducted with oxathiapiprolin in rats. The no-observed-effect level (NOEL) and no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) in an acute neurotoxicity study where 2000 milligram (mg) oxathiapiprolin/kilogram bodyweight (kg bw), which was the highest dose administered in the study.

	2. Genotoxicty. Oxathiapiprolin was evaluated in a battery of in vitro and in vivo genetic toxicology studies. Negative results were obtained in all studies indicating that oxathiapiprolin does not cause genetic damage and therefore, does not pose a mutagenic hazard.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. No effects on fertility were observed in one- and two- generation reproduction studies in rats. No effects on development were observed in developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits. Slight delays in sexual maturation were observed in male rats in the multi-generation reproduction studies, with a NOAEL of 104 mg/kg bw/day. Decreases in offspring body weight were also observed in the multi-generation reproduction studies at higher dose levels.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. Short-term oral feeding studies with oxathiapiprolin were conducted in rats, mice and dogs with durations of up to 90 days. In addition, a 14 day oral gavage study (conducted as part of early discovery) and a 28-day dermal study were performed. No adverse effects were observed in any of these studies. In all cases, the NOAELs were greater than or equal to 1000 mg/kg bw/day. Non–adverse findings observed in these studies were limited to changes in organ weights, clinical chemistry parameters and liver cytochrome P450 isozymes.

Oxathiapiprolin showed no evidence of immunotoxicity in a 28-day feeding study in mice. Additionally, no indications of a potential for oxathiapiprolin to affect the immune system were noted in the subchronic/carcinogenicity studies with rats, mice or dogs. Based on this, oxathiapiprolin does not appear to pose an immunotoxic hazard.

Neurotoxicity endpoints were included in the subchronic (90-day feeding) study that tested up to 1096/1300 mg/kg bw/day in male/female rats. No evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in the 90-day dietary toxicity study in rats. There was also a lack of any treatment related clinical signs indicative of potential neurotoxicity observed in the repeated dose studies in mice or dogs.

	5. Chronic toxicity. Based on the results of chronic feeding studies in rats and mice, oxathiapiprolin was not carcinogenic in either species. No indications of chronic toxicity were observed in either study. A one-year toxicity study was also conducted in dogs, with no toxicologically relevant findings. Possible test substance-related changes in organ weights and clinical chemistry parameters were observed.

	6. Animal metabolism. [14C]Oxathiapiprolin was investigated in rats after single low and high dose administration, and after multiple treatments at low doses. At the low dose (10 mg/kg bw) absorption was 31-49%, and declined to 5.4-7.7% at the high dose (200 mg/kg bw). Peak plasma concentrations occurred at 0.25-9.5 hours. Plasma 14C residue concentrations showed steady-state kinetics in male and female rats after multiple low does administrations (10 gm/kg bw for 14 days).

Maximum tissue concentrations at Tmax occurred in the liver. Clearance was rapid for liver and other tissues by 168 hours after dosing. All tissues at 168 hours, including the carcass, collectively retained <0.05% of the dose. The pattern of distribution was similar between sexes and single and multiple dose administration. The low percentage and concentration values in tissues indicate very low potential for accumulation.

Plasma terminal elimination half-lives ranged from 40-51 hours following single or multiple low-dose administration. Excretion in urine and feces was >95% complete by 48 hours after single dosing. The pattern of excretion was similar after multiple dosing. Fecal excretion was the primary route of elimination (≥90%). Recovery in urine was much lower (≤2.5%). Essentially no excretion occurred by exhalation.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. Oxathiapiprolin is considered to be the only molecule of toxicological relevance. Toxicology studies conducted with metabolites support this conclusion.

	8. Endocrine disruption. No relevant effects were observed on any endocrine tissue in short- and long-term studies in rats, mice and dogs to suggest an adverse impact on estrogen or androgen pathways or on steroid biosynthesis. The reproduction studies in rats provided sufficient information to fully interpret the effects of oxathiapiprolin on reproduction. No observations in that study suggested an adverse effect on estrogen. Additionally, investigational studies were conducted that suggest no adverse effects on estrogen. The slight delay in maturation observed in male rats in the reproduction studies may be exacerbated by weight effects; however, the data suggest that other factors are involved. Investigational studies did not reveal any adverse effects on androgens by oxathiapiprolin in rats.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. EPA has established tolerances for direct or indirect residues of the fungicide oxathiapiprolin, 1-(4-{4-[(5RS)-5-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4,5-dihydro-1,2-oxazol-3-yl]-1,3-t hiazol-2-yl}-1-piperidyl)-2-[5-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-1-y l] ethanone, in or on a number of raw agricultural and processed commodities (40CFR §180.685).  There are currently pending uses on potato (Subgroup 1C) and citrus (Crop Group 10-10A) for Syngenta, sunflower and soybean for DuPont, and basil, asparagus, cane berries (Subgroup 13-07A), and mustard greens for IR-4.  With this Notice-of-Filing, Syngenta is proposing new tolerances for an IR-4 use on cocoa.  There is no expectation of residues of oxathiapiprolin in the meat, milk, or eggs of ruminants and/or poultry resulting from any current or proposed uses and no tolerances have been proposed in or on any livestock commodities at this time.  The EPA stated in its June 25, 2015 human health safety technical review of the DuPont petition (DP Barcode D417279) that toxicological studies for oxathiapiprolin did not demonstrate any treatment-related effects and subsequently EPA did not establish any oral, dermal, or inhalation (acute, chronic, or short-term) endpoints for assessment of consumer exposures.  In keeping with the EPA’s current policy and practice with respect to oxathiapiprolin, Syngenta has not conducted any consumer risk assessments for the proposed use on cocoa.

	i. Food. Due to the lack of toxicological endpoints and Points-of-Departure (PODs), quantitative acute dietary risk assessments were not conducted.

Chronic exposure.  Due to the lack of toxicological endpoints and PODs, quantitative chronic dietary risk assessments were not conducted.

Cancer.  Oxathiapiprolin is classified as "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans."  No treatment-related increase in tumors was observed in carcinogenicity studies in rats and/or mice.  A cancer dietary assessment was not conducted

	ii. Drinking water. Due to the lack of toxicological endpoints and PODs, quantitative drinking water risk assessments were not conducted.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. Residential Exposure: Since no toxicological endpoints of concern were identified for oxathiapiprolin and no PODs were selected, quantitative residential risk assessments were not conducted.

Occupational Exposure:  Although there is potential for occupational handler and post-application exposure, risk estimates for OXTP were not quantitatively assessed because no dermal or inhalation toxicological endpoints were identified or PODs selected.  The PPE statement on proposed labels requires handlers to wear baseline clothing (i.e., long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes plus socks), no chemical-resistant gloves and no respirator.  No additional PPE recommendations are needed based on HED’s risk assessment.  The PPE determination and REIs on proposed labels should be based on the acute toxicity of OXTP.

D. Cumulative Effects

	Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to oxathiapiprolin and any other substances and oxathiapiprolin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances.  For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that oxathiapiprolin has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. There is the potential for dietary (food and drinking water) and residential exposures associated with all current, pending, and proposed uses of oxathiapiprolin.  However, due to the lack of toxicity at the human exposure levels anticipated for oxathiapiprolin based on the proposed use patterns, no quantitative dietary, residential, or aggregate exposure assessments are required and no risks of concern are anticipated.

	2. Infants and children. There is the potential for dietary (food and drinking water) and residential exposures associated with all current, pending, and proposed uses of oxathiapiprolin.  However, due to the lack of toxicity at the human exposure levels anticipated for oxathiapiprolin based on the proposed use patterns, no quantitative dietary, residential, or aggregate exposure assessments are required and no risks of concern are anticipated.

F. International Tolerances

	The following national Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs)* have been established for oxathiapiprolin:

Commodity	US/Canada/Mexico	Australia	Japan

Amaranth, leafy	15	15

	Arracacha, root	0.01

Arrowroot, tuber	0.01

Artichoke, Chinese, tuber	0.01

Artichoke, Jerusalem, tuber	0.01

Arugula	15

Balsam apple	0.2	0.2

	Balsam pear	0.2	0.2

	Broccoli	1.5	2

	Broccoli, Chinese	1.5	2

	Brussels sprouts	1.5	2

	Cabbage	1.5	2

	Cabbage, Chinese, mustard, gai choy	1.5

Cabbage, Chinese, napa	1.5	15	0.2

Canna, edible, tuber	0.01

Cantaloupe	0.2	0.2

	Cassava, root	0.01

Cauliflower	1.5	2

	Cavalo broccolo	1.5

Chayote, fruit	0.2	0.2

	Chayote, root	0.01

Chervil	15	15

	Chickpea	0.05

Chive, Chinese, leaves	2

Chives	2

Chrysanthemum, edible-leaved	15,  Canada = 0.1

Chrysanthemum, garland	15	15

	Chufa, tuber	0.01

Corn salad	15

Cress, garden	15	15

	Cress, upland	15, Canada = 0.1

Cucumber	0.2	0.2	0.2

* Source: Global MRL Database;   HYPERLINK "https://www.globalmrl.com/db#query"  https://www.globalmrl.com/db#query

Commodity	US/Canada/Mexico	Australia	Japan

Cucumber, Chinese	0.2

Dandelion, leaves	15	15

	Daylily, bulb	0.04

Dock (sorrel)	15	15

	Eggplant	0.5

Eggplant, African	0.5

Eggplant, pea	0.5

Eggplant, scarlet	0.5

Elegans hosta	2

Endive (escarole)	15	15

	Fritillaria, bulb	0.04

Fritillaria, leaves	2

Garden huckleberry	0.5

Garlic, bulb	0.04	1

	Garlic, great headed, bulb	0.04

Garlic, serpent, bulb	0.04

Gerkin, West Indian	0.2	0.2

	Ginger, root	0.01

Ginseng, root	0.15

Goji berry	0.5

Gourd, edible (bottle)	0.2	0.2

	Grape, table	0.7 for US & Mexico IT only, Canada = 0.1a

0.5

Grape, wine	0.7 for US & Mexico IT only, Canada = 0.1a

0.5

Groundcherry	0.5

Kohlrabi	1.5	2

	Kurrat	2

Lady’s leek	2

Leek	2	1

	Leek, wild	2

Lentil	0.05, Canada = 0.1a

Leren, tuber	0.01

Lettuce, head	15	2	0.5

Lettuce, leaf	15	15	0.5

Lily, bulb	0.04

Loofa, angled	0.2	0.2

	Loofa, smooth	0.2	0.2

	Martynia	0.5

a Canada default of 0.1ppm applies.

Commodity	US/Canada/Mexico	Australia	Japan

Melon, casaba	0.2	0.2

	Melon, citron	0.2

Melon, crenshaw	0.2	0.2

	Melon, golden pershaw	0.2	0.2

	Melon, honey ball	0.2	0.2

	Melon, honeydew	0.2	0.2

	Melon, mango	0.2	0.2

	Melon, Persian	0.2	0.2

	Melon, pineapple	0.2	0.2

	Melon, Santa Claus	0.2	0.2

	Melon, snake	0.2	0.2

	Muskmelon	0.2	0.2

	Naranjilla	0.5

Okra	0.5

Onion, Beltsville bunching	2

Onion, bulb	0.04	0.02

	Onion, Chinese, bulb	0.04	1

	Onion, fresh	2

Onion, green	2	1

	Onion, macrostem	2

Onion, pearl	0.04

Onion, potato, bulb	0.04

Onion, tree, tops	2	1

	Onion, Welsh, tops	2	1

	Orach	15

Parsley 	15

Pea, dwarf	0.05, Canada edible podded = 1

Pea, English	0.05

Pea, field	0.05, Canada = 0.1a

Pea, garden	0.05

Pea, green	0.05

Pea, pigeon	0.05, Canada edible podded = 1

Pea, snow	 edible-podded = 1,  succulent shelled = 0.05, Canada edible podded only = 1

Pea, sugar snap	edible-podded = 1,  succulent shelled = 0.05, Canada edible podded only = 1

Pepino	0.5

a  Canada default of 0.1ppm applies.

Commodity	US/Canada/Mexico	Australia	Japan

Pepper, bell	0.5

Pepper, non-bell	0.5

Potato 	0.01

0.05

Pumpkin 	0.2	0.2

	Purslane, garden	15	15

	Purslane, winter	15

Radicchio (red chicory)	15	15

	Roselle (calyx and flower)	0.5

Shallot, bulb	0.04	1

	Shallot, fresh leaves	2

Spinach 	15	15

	Spinach, New Zealand	15	15

	Spinach, vine	15

Squash, summer (crookneck)	0.2	0.2

	Squash, summer (scallop)	0.2	0.2

	Squash, summer (straightneck)	0.2	0.2

	Squash, summer (vegetable marrow)	0.2	0.2

	Squash, summer (zucchini)	0.2	0.2

	Squash, winter (acorn)	0.2	0.2

	Squash, winter (butternut)	0.2	0.2

	Squash, winter (calabaza)	0.2	0.2

	Squash, winter (hubbard)	0.2	0.2

	Squash, winter (spaghetti)	0.2	0.2

	Sunberry	0.5

Sweet potato	0.01

Tanier, corm	0.01

Taro (dasheen), corm	0.01

Tomatillo 	0.5

Tomato 	0.5

0.3

Tomato, dried	3

Tomato, bush	0.5

Tomato, currant	0.5

Tree tomato (tamarillo)	0.5

Turmeric, root	0.01

Watermelon 	0.2	0.2

	Waxgourd 	0.2

Yam bean (jicama), root	0.01

Yam, true, tuber	0.01

Codex Alimentarius Commission has not established any MRLs for oxathiapiprolin in or on any agricultural commodities. However, oxathiapiprolin is on the 2016 JMPR Priority List and the following commodities will be evaluated: grapes, potato (foliar use), dry bulb onion, green onion, tomato, bell pepper, non-bell pepper, courgette, cucumber, melon, summer squash, cantaloupe, broccoli, cauliflower, head cabbage, lettuce, spinach, succulent peas, ginseng and tobacco.

Additional international MRLs or Import Tolerances are expected to be established in the following countries in 2017 and 2018: EU, Japan, Australia, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Korea.

Å

Æ

 W

{

|

œ

Ÿ

¡

¢

¾

¿

Å

Æ

Ê

Ð

Ò

+

S

h7

摧季f¹欀Ꙥ

摧季f¹欀偤

 PAGE

 PAGE   10


[Federal Register: March 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 46)]
[Notices]
[Page 12487-12489]
[DOCID:fr07mr08-134]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57413; File No. SR-FINRA-2008-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Make Permanent a Pilot Program That Increases
Options Position and Exercise Limits

March 3, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 28, 2008, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by FINRA. FINRA
has designated this proposal as non-controversial under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA seeks to amend NASD Rule 2860 (Options) to make permanent a
pilot program that increases options position and exercise limits. In
addition, FINRA proposes to amend NASD IM-2860-1 (Position Limits) to
revise the examples that illustrate the operation of position limits
with the proposed permanent position limits. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on FINRA's Web site (http://www.finra.org), at
FINRA's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    FINRA is proposing amendments to its options position and exercise
limits in NASD Rule 2860 to make permanent a pilot program that
increases position and exercise limits for both standardized and
conventional options.\5\ In addition, FINRA proposes to amend NASD IM-
2860-1 (Position Limits) to revise the examples that illustrate the
operation of position limits with the proposed permanent position
limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A ``conventional option'' is an option contract not issued,
or subject to issuance by, the Options Clearing Corporation. See
NASD Rule 2860(b)(2)(O). Currently, position limits for standardized
and conventional options are the same with respect to the same
underlying security. The proposed rule change would maintain this
parity between standardized and conventional options. FINRA has
maintained parity between conventional and standardized options
since 1999. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40932 (January
11, 1999), 64 FR 2930, 2931 (January 19, 1999) (SR-NASD-98-92).
Before 1999, position limits on conventional options were three
times greater than the limits for standardized options. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40087 (June 12, 1998), 63 FR
33746 (June 19, 1998) (SR-NASD-98-23).
    FINRA's limits on standardized equity options are applicable
only to those members that are not also members of the exchange on
which the option is traded; the limits on conventional options are
applicable to all FINRA members. NASD Rule 2860(b)(1)(A); see also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40932 (January 11, 1999), 64 FR
2930, 2931 (January 19, 1999) (SR-NASD-98-92).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD Rule 2860(b)(3) subjects standardized and conventional options
to one of five different position limits. Options exercise limits,
which are set forth in NASD Rule 2860(b)(4), and which incorporate by
reference the position limits in Rule 2860(b)(3), also would increase.
The original pilot program became effective on March 30, 2005, and has
been extended five times. It was scheduled to expire on March 1,
2008.\6\ FINRA is proposing to make the pilot program permanent in
order to preserve the benefits to the marketplace from the higher
levels. The proposed rule change also is substantively identical to a
proposal by the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. recently approved
by the Commission.\7\ FINRA anticipates all other self-regulatory
organizations (``SROs'') with the pilot program also will seek to make
their program permanent. Thus, the proposed rule change will ensure
that FINRA's position limits are consistent with those of other SROs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 52271 (August 16,
2005), 70 FR 49344 (August 23, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-097); 53346
(February 22, 2006), 71 FR 10580 (March 1, 2006) (SR-NASD-2006-025);
54334 (August 18, 2006), 71 FR 50961 (August 28, 2006) (SR-NASD-
2006-097); 55225 (February 1, 2007), 72 FR 6634 (February 12, 2007)
(SR-NASD-2007-007); and 56265 (August 15, 2007), 72 FR 47102 (August
22, 2007) (SR-FINRA-2007-002).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57352 (February 19,
2008), 73 FR 10076 (February 25, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2008-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Position and Exercise Limits
    The standard position limits were last increased nine years ago, on
December 31, 1998.\8\ Since that time, there has been a steady increase
in the number of accounts that approach the position limit or have been
granted an exemption to the applicable position limit. To the best of
FINRA's knowledge, during the operation of the pilot program, there
have been very few violations of the position limits or exercise limits
and none of these violations were deemed to be a result of manipulative
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40875 (December 31,
1998), 64 FR 1842 (January 12, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Growth in Options Market

    Since the last position limit increase, there has been an
exponential increase in the overall volume in options trading. Part of
this volume is attributable to a corresponding increase in the number
of overall market participants. This growth in market participants has
in turn brought about additional depth and increased liquidity in
options trading. FINRA has no reason to believe that the current
trading volume in equity options will not continue. Rather, FINRA
expects continued options volume growth as opportunities for investors
to participate in the options markets increase and evolve. FINRA
believes that the non-pilot position and exercise limits might
constrain liquidity in the options markets.
Manipulation
    Since the last position limit increase, and throughout the duration
of the pilot program, FINRA has not encountered any significant
regulatory issues regarding the applicable position limits. Moreover,
FINRA believes that there is a lack of evidence of market

manipulation schemes, which justifies the proposed permanent approval
of the pilot program. FINRA believes that its existing surveillance
procedures and reporting requirements are reasonably designed to detect
unusual and/or illegal trading activity. FINRA represents that its
surveillance and reporting mechanisms (which have been significantly
enhanced since the last position limit increase in 1999) will serve to
adequately address any concerns the Commission may have with respect to
account(s) engaging in any manipulative schemes resulting from position
limit violations.
No Adverse Consequences from Past Increases
    Equity option position limits have been gradually expanded from
1,000 contracts in 1973 to the current level of 75,000 contracts for
the largest and most actively traded equity options. To date, FINRA is
unaware of any adverse affects on the markets as a result of these past
increases in the limits for equity option contracts.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\9\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The proposed rule change would make permanent a pilot
program increasing options position and exercise limits. FINRA's
experience administering the higher limits of the pilot program over
the past three years has not revealed any adverse concerns or any other
reasons to suggest that such limits should not be made permanent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    FINRA has designated the proposed rule change as one that: (1) Does
not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) does not become operative for 30 days from the date of filing,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the
foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\11\ FINRA notes that the proposed rule change is based on a
similar proposal recently approved by the Commission.\12\ FINRA has
asked the Commission to waive the operative delay to permit the
proposed rule change to become operative prior to the 30th day after
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. FINRA has fulfilled this requirement.
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57352 (February 19,
2008), 73 FR 10076 (February 25, 2008) (order granting accelerated
approval to SR-CBOE-2008-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The pilot program expanding position and exercise limits on
standardized and conventional options was scheduled to expire on March
1, 2008. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative
delay of FINRA's proposal is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because it will allow the position
and exercise limits to remain at consistent levels during the
transition from the pilot program to permanent status.\13\ Therefore,
the Commission designates the proposal to be operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-FINRA-2008-007 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2008-007. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commissions Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2008-007 and should be
submitted on or before March 28, 2008.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-4513 Filed 3-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 178 (Tuesday, September 15, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55232-55234]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21458]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0363; Directorate Identifier 2014-NE-08-AD;
Amendment 39-18252; AD 2015-17-19]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211 Trent 768-60, 772-60, and 772B-60 turbofan
engines. This AD was prompted by fuel leaks caused by damage to the fan
case low-pressure (LP) fuel tube. This AD requires inspection of the
fan case LP fuel tubes and associated clips and the fuel oil heat
exchanger (FOHE) mounts and associated hardware. We are issuing this AD
to prevent failure of the fan case LP fuel tube, which could lead to an
in-flight engine shutdown, loss of thrust control, and damage to the
airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective October 20, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 20,
2015.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England,
DE248BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email:
http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp; Web site: https://www.aeromanager.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2014-0363.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0363; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wego Wang, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
781-238-7199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all RR RB211
Trent 768-60, 772-60, and 772B-60 turbofan engines. The SNPRM published
in the Federal Register on April 21, 2015 (80 FR 22137). We preceded
the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in
the Federal Register on July 3, 2014 (79 FR 37965). The NPRM proposed
to require inspection of the fan case LP fuel tubes and associated
clips and the FOHE mounts and associated hardware. The NPRM was
prompted by fuel leaks caused by damage to the fan case LP fuel tube.
We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the fan case LP fuel tube,
which could lead to an in-flight engine shutdown, loss of thrust
control, and damage to the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) No.
RB.211-73-AH522, Revision 2, dated July 18, 2014; and RR Alert NMSB No.
RB.211-73-AH837, dated September 9, 2014. This service information
describes procedures for inspecting, and replacing if required, the fan
case LP fuel tube and clips and the FOHE mounts and hardware. This
service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or
see ADDRESSES for other ways to access this service information.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the SNPRM (80 FR 22137, April 21,
2015).

Conclusion

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects about 50 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 6
hours per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85
per hour. We also estimate that 25 of the engines will fail the
inspection required by this AD. Required parts cost about $4,031 per
engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $126,275.

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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2015-17-19 Rolls-Royce plc: Amendment 39-18252; Docket No. FAA-2014-
0363; Directorate Identifier 2014-NE-08-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 20, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211 Trent 768-60,
772-60, and 772B-60 turbofan engines, if fitted with fuel tube, part
number (P/N) FW53576, which was incorporated through RR production
modification 73-F343 or which were modified in service in accordance
with RR Service Bulletin (SB) No. RB.211-73-F343, Revision 4, dated
May 26, 2011.

(d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by fuel leaks caused by damage to the fan
case low-pressure (LP) fuel tube. We are issuing this AD to prevent
failure of the fan case LP fuel tube, which could lead to an in-
flight engine shutdown, loss of thrust control, and damage to the
airplane.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) Within 800 flight hours (FH) after the effective date of
this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 800 FH, inspect
the clip at the uppermost fan case LP fuel tube clip position,
CP4881, and support bracket, P/N FW26692. Use Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraph 3.A, of RR Alert Non-Modification Service
Bulletin (NMSB) No. RB.211-73-AH837, dated September 9, 2014, or
paragraph 3.A. or 3.B. of RR Alert NMSB No. RB.211-73-AH522,
Revision 2, dated July 18, 2014, to do the inspection.
    (i) If the clip at the uppermost clip position, CP4881, fails
inspection, replace the clip with a part eligible for installation
and, before further flight, inspect the fan case LP fuel tube, P/N
FW53576, for fretting, and clips for cracks or failure, according to
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A. of RR Alert NMSB No.
RB.211-73-AH837, dated September 9, 2014, or paragraph 3.A. or 3.B.
of RR Alert NMSB No. RB.211-73-AH522, Revision 2, dated July 18,
2014.
    (ii) If the support bracket, P/N FW26692, fails inspection,
replace the bracket before further flight with a part eligible for
installation and inspect the fan case LP fuel tube, P/N FW53576, and
clips for cracks or failure.
    (2) Within 4,000 FH since new or 800 FH, whichever occurs later,
after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 4,000 FH, inspect the fan case LP fuel tube, P/N FW53576,
and clips, and the fuel oil heat exchanger (FOHE) mounts and
hardware, for damage, wear, or fretting. Use paragraph 3.A. or 3.B.,
Accomplishment Instructions, of RR Alert NMSB No. RB.211-73-AH522,
Revision 2, dated July 18, 2014, to do the inspection.
    (i) If the fan case LP fuel tube, P/N FW53576, fails inspection,
before further flight, replace the fuel tube and clips with parts
eligible for installation.
    (ii) If any FOHE mount or hardware shows signs of damage, wear,
or fretting, replace the damaged part before further flight with a
part eligible for installation.
    (3) At each shop visit after the effective date of this AD,
inspect the fan case LP fuel tubes, P/Ns FW26589, FW36335, FW26587,
FW53577, and FW53576, and clips, and the FOHE mounts and hardware,
for damage, wear, or fretting. Use paragraphs 3.B.(1) and 3.B.(2) of
RR Alert NMSB No. RB.211-73-AH522, Revision 2, dated July 18, 2014,
to do the inspection.
    (i) If any fan case LP fuel tube fails inspection, replace the
fuel tube and clips before further flight with parts eligible for
installation.
    (ii) If any FOHE mount or hardware shows signs of damage, wear,
or fretting, replace the damaged part before further flight with a
part eligible for installation.
    (4) If you replace any fan case LP fuel tube, clip, or FOHE
mount or hardware as a result of the inspections in paragraphs
(e)(1), (e)(2), or (e)(3) of this AD, you must still continue to
perform the repetitive inspections in paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2), and
(e)(3) of this AD.
    (5) Any reports requested in the Alert NMSB accomplishment
instructions referenced in paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3) of
this AD are not required by this AD.

(f) Credit for Previous Actions

    If, before the effective date of this AD, you performed the
inspections and corrective actions required by paragraph (e) of this
AD using RR NMSB No. RB.211-73-G848, Revision 3, dated June 12,
2014; or RR Alert NMSB No. RB.211-73-AH837, dated September 9, 2014;
or paragraph 3.A. or 3.B. of RR Alert NMSB No. RB.211-73-AH522,
Revision 2, dated July 18, 2014; or earlier versions, you met the
inspection requirements in paragraph (e) of this AD.

(g) Definitions

    For the purposes of this AD:
    (1) An ``engine shop visit'' is the induction of an engine into
the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major
mating engine flanges, except that the separation of engine flanges
solely for the purposes of transportation without subsequent engine
maintenance is not an engine shop visit.
    (2) The fan case LP fuel tubes and clips, and the FOHE mounts
and hardware, are eligible for installation if they have passed the
inspection requirements of paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3) of
this AD.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
to this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Wego Wang,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2014-
0243R1, dated December 10, 2014 for more information. You may
examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0363-0004.
    (3) RR NMSB No. RB.211-73-G848, Revision 3, dated June 12, 2014;
RR Alert NMSB No. RB.211-73-AH837, dated September 9, 2014; and RR
Alert NMSB No. RB.211-73-AH522, Revision 2, dated July 18, 2014, or
earlier versions, which are not incorporated by reference in this
AD, can be obtained from RR, using the contact information in
paragraph (j)(3) of this AD.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin
(NMSB) No. RB.211-73-AH522, Revision 2, dated July 18, 2014.
    (ii) RR NMSB No. RB.211-73-AH837, dated September 9, 2014.
    (3) For RR service information identified in this AD, contact
Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby,
England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-
249936; email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp;
Internet: https://www.aeromanager.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 20, 2015.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-21458 Filed 9-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 33 (Monday, February 22, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10524-10526]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02912]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0519; FRL-10017-54--Region 9]

Air Quality Implementation Plan; California; Mendocino County Air
Quality Management District; Stationary Source Permits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve two rule revisions to the Mendocino County Air Quality
Managment District (MCAQMD or ``District'') portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern the District's
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting program for
new and modified stationary sources of air pollution. We are proposing
action on these local rules pursuant to requirements under Part C of
Title I of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the ``Act'').
We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final
action.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 24, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2020-0519 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be removed or edited 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 the disclosure of which 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 and
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a language other than English or if
you are a person with disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation
at no cost to you, please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Batchelder, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105; by phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
II. The EPA's Evaluation
    A. How is the EPA evaluating these rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
III. Proposed Action and Public Comment
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this action with the dates
that they were adopted by the MCAQMD and submitted by the California
Air Resources Board (CARB), the Governor's designee for California SIP
submittals.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Rule No.                                Rule title                    Amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-220..................................  New Source Review Standards (Including         4/7/2020       8/10/2020
                                          PSD Evaluations).
1-230..................................  Action on Applications.................        4/7/2020       8/10/2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed action serves as our formal determination that the
submittal for Rules 1-220 and 1-230 meets the completeness criteria in
40 CFR part 51 Appendix V.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    On July 3, 2017, the EPA finalized approval of Rule 1-230 and
limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 1-220. 82 FR 30770.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?

    On July 3, 2017, we listed the following two deficiencies in our
final limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 1-220:
     Rule 1-220 does not contain any provisions specifying that
required air quality modeling shall be based on the applicable models,
databases, and other requirements specified in Part 51 Appendix W;
therefore, the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160(f) and 51.166(l) have not
been met.
     The requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(r)(2) \1\ have not been
met because the rule does not include the necessary information about a
source's obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 2017 final rule stated incorrectly that the criteria in
40 CFR 51.166(r)(1) had not been met. Our proposal notice (81 FR
95074, December 27, 2016) and Technical Support Document (TSD)
correctly noted that only the criteria in 40 CFR 41.166(r)(2) had
not been met. See e.g., Section 4.2, number 15 on Page 18 of the TSD
for the 2017 final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District addressed the first deficiency by adding provisions to
Rule 1-220 and addressed the second deficiency by revising Rule 1-230.
    Rules 1-220 and 1-230 contain the requirements for review and
permitting of individual stationary sources in the MCAQMD. The amended
sections of these rules satisfy the statutory and regulatory
requirements for the New Source Review (NSR) program, including the PSD
program. The changes the District made to the rules listed above as
they pertain to the PSD program were largely administrative in nature
and provide additional clarity to the rules.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Rule 1-220 includes a potential typographical error. The
term ``bases'' should be ``databases.'' This error does not impact
applicability nor enforceability. We recommend correcting the
language the next time the rule is amended. Please see the TSD,
located in the docket for this rule, for additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The EPA's Evaluation

A. How is the EPA evaluating these rules?

    The EPA reviewed the revised portions of Rules 1-220 and 1-230 for
compliance with the CAA's general requirements for SIPs in CAA section
110(a)(2), the EPA's regulations for stationary source permitting
programs in 40 CFR part 51, 51.160-51.164 and 51.166, and the CAA
requirements for SIP revisions in CAA section 110(l). The EPA is
proposing approval of Rules 1-220: New Source Review Standards
(Including PSD Evaluations) and 1-230: Action on Applications.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    With respect to procedural requirements, CAA sections 110(a)(2) and
110(l) require that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the state after
reasonable notice and public hearing. Based on our review of the public
process documentation included in the August 10, 2020 submittal of the
MCAQMD Rules 1-220 and 1-230, we find that the MCAQMD has provided
sufficient evidence of public notice, opportunity for comment and a
public hearing prior to adoption and submittal of these rules to the
EPA.
    We have determined that the revised sections of the rules satisfy
all of the statutory and regulatory requirements for a PSD permit
program as set forth in the applicable provisions of Part C of Title I
of the Act and in 40 CFR part 51, 51.160-51.164 and 51.166. The
revisions to these rules address and correct the limited disapproval
issues from our July 3, 2017 final action.
    Our Technical Support Document, which can be found in the docket
for this rule, contains a more detailed discussion and analysis of the
approval criteria and the District's submittal.

III. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is proposing
to approve the submitted rules because they correct the previously
identified deficiencies and fulfill all relevant CAA requirements. We
will accept comments from the public on this proposal until March 24,
2021. If we finalize this action as proposed, our action will be
codified through revisions to 40 CFR 52.220a (Identification of plan-in
part).

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the MCAQMD rules described in Table 1 of this preamble. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available
through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this
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 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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the 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 and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, New source review, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: February 5, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2021-02912 Filed 2-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P