[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 159 (Friday, August 16, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49978-49982]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19925]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0694; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-097-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2002-10-
11, which applies to certain the Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -
200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. AD 2002-10-11 currently
requires repetitive inspections for cracking and corrosion of the aft
pressure bulkhead, and corrective actions if necessary; and, for
certain airplanes, enlargement of frame chord drain holes, and
repetitive inspections of the frame chord drain path for debris, and
corrective actions if necessary. Since we issued AD 2002-10-11, we have
received three reports of severe corrosion in the area affected by that
AD. This proposed AD would, for certain airplanes, reduce the
repetitive inspection interval, and add repetitive inspections of the
frame chord drain path for obstructions and debris, and corrective
actions if necessary. This proposed AD would also limit corrosion and
cracking repairs of the aft pressure bulkhead accomplished after the
effective date of this AD to those approved by the FAA in a manner
described therein. In reviewing AD 2002-10-11, we noted that the drain
path inspection was not required for certain airplanes, and could be
eliminated for all airplanes if operators accomplished certain actions
required by AD 2002-10-11. This proposed AD would add a drain path
inspection for all airplanes. We are proposing this AD to detect and
correct corrosion or cracking of the aft pressure bulkhead, which could
result in loss of the aft pressure bulkhead web and stiffeners, and
consequent rapid decompression of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 30,
2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
425-917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0694;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-097-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On May 14, 2002, we issued AD 2002-10-11, Amendment 39-12757 (67 FR
36085, May 23, 2002), for certain Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -
400, and -500 series airplanes. AD 2002-10-11 superseded AD 84-20-03
R1, Amendment 39-5183 (50 FR 51235, December 16, 1985). AD 2002-10-11
requires repetitive inspections for cracking and corrosion of the aft
pressure bulkhead, and corrective actions if necessary; and, for
certain airplanes, enlargement of frame chord drain holes, repetitive
inspections of the frame chord drain path for obstructions and debris,
and corrective actions if necessary. We issued AD 2002-10-11 to detect
and correct corrosion or cracking of the aft pressure bulkhead at body
station (BS) 1016, which could result in loss of the aft pressure
bulkhead web and stiffeners, and consequent rapid decompression of the
fuselage.

Actions Since AD 2002-10-11, Amendment 39-12757 (67 FR 36085, May 23,
2002), Was Issued

    Since 2010, we have received three reports of severe corrosion in
the aft pressure bulkhead. Two of these airplanes were corroded
completely through the thickness of the pressure web. The age of the
airplanes when corrosion was found ranged from 12 to 17 years. The
total flight hours ranged from 40,892 to 68,389 hours, and the total
flight cycles ranged from 22,701 to 58,156 flight cycles.
    AD 2002-10-11, Amendment 39-12757 (67 FR 36085, May 23, 2002),

requires repetitive inspections for corrosion at 2-year intervals for
airplanes having line numbers 1 through 1042, and at 4-year intervals
for airplanes having line numbers 1043 through 3132. All reports of
severe corrosion have been from the latter group of airplanes with the
longer repetitive inspection interval.
    In addition, repair procedures in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1075, Revision 3, dated June 8, 2000, which is specified in
paragraph (g) of AD 2002-10-11, Amendment 39-12757 (67 FR 36085, May
23, 2002), as the appropriate source of service information, include
instructions for blending out corrosion on the bulkhead web. The
reworked web is more susceptible to subsequent corrosion.
    After consultation with the manufacturer, we have determined that
reduction of the interval for the repetitive inspections from 4 years
to 2 years, together with removal of repair instructions for blending
out corrosion on the bulkhead web, will reduce the frequency and
severity of corrosion findings and provide an acceptable level of
safety.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2002-10-11,
Amendment 39-12757 (67 FR 36085, May 23, 2002). This proposed AD would
reduce the interval for the repetitive inspections for airplanes having
line numbers (L/N) 1043 through 3132 inclusive from 4 years to 2 years;
and would provide an option to inspect only the aft side of the aft
pressure bulkhead every 3 months for a maximum of 2 years, at which
time both the forward and aft sides of the aft pressure bulkhead would
require repetitive inspections at 2-year intervals. This proposed AD
would, for certain airplanes, add repetitive inspections of the frame
chord drain path for debris, and corrective actions if necessary.

Changes to AD 2002-10-11, Amendment 39-12757 (67 FR 36085, May 23,
2002)

    This proposed AD would retain all the requirements of AD 2002-10-
11, Amendment 39-12757 (67 FR 36085, May 23, 2002). Since AD 2002-10-11
was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have
been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers
have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table:

                      Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Requirement in AD 2002-10-11,
 Amendment 39-12757 (67 FR 36085,     Corresponding requirement in this
           May 23, 2002)                         proposed AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 paragraph (a)                       paragraph (g)
 paragraph (b)                       paragraph (h)
 paragraph (c)                       paragraph (i)
 paragraph (d)                       paragraph (j)
 paragraph (e)                       paragraph (k)
 paragraph (f)                       paragraph (l)
 paragraph (g)                       paragraph (m)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note 2 (detailed inspection definition) in AD 2002-10-11, Amendment
39-12757 (67 FR 36085, May 23, 2002), has been removed from this
proposed AD because it is described in Figure 1 of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1075, Revision 3, dated June 8, 2000.
    Paragraph (e) of AD 2002-10-11, Amendment 39-12757 (67 FR 36085,
May 23, 2002), which is paragraph (k) in this proposed AD, has been
revised to clarify that the required actions include inspecting the
drain path in the chord frame for debris.
    The terminating action statement in paragraph (e)(1) of AD 2002-10-
11, Amendment 39-12757 (67 FR 36085, May 23, 2002), has been revised to
terminate only the aft bulkhead inspection for cracking and corrosion
in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD.
    Since we issued AD 2002-10-11, Amendment 39-12757 (67 FR 36085, May
23, 2002), Boeing Commercial Airplanes received an Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA). We have revised this proposed AD to
delegate the authority to approve an alternative method of compliance
for any repair required by this AD to the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
ODA rather than a Designated Engineering Representative.

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1075, Revision 3, dated June
8, 2000, describes instructions on how to repair certain conditions,
but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of
the following ways:
     In accordance with a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes ODA whom we have authorized to make those findings.
    This proposed AD would also reduce the repeat inspection interval
for corrosion and cracking on airplanes having line numbers 1043
through 3132.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 419 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                      Labor cost         Parts cost    Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection......................  4 work-hours x $85 per           $0   $340 per inspection  $142,460 per
                                   hour = $340 per                       cycle.               inspection cycle.
                                   inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new requirements of this proposed AD add no additional economic
burden.
    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that
would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We
have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these
repairs:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Action                             Labor cost            Parts cost       Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair.................................  Up to 136 work-hours x $85 per      $5,217   Up to $16,777.
                                          hour = Up to $11,560.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 proposed regulation is
within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe
condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in
this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2002-10-11, Amendment 39-12757 (67 FR 36085, May 23, 2002), and adding
the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2013-0694; Directorate Identifier
2013-NM-097-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by September 30,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2002-10-11, Amendment 39-12757 (67 FR
36085, May 23, 2002).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -
200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any
category, line numbers 1 through 3132 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by three reports of severe corrosion in the
area affected by AD 2002-10-11, Amendment 39-12757 (67 FR 36085, May
23, 2002). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion or
cracking of the aft pressure bulkhead, which could result in loss of
the aft pressure bulkhead web and stiffeners, and consequent rapid
decompression of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Initial Aft Pressure Bulkhead Inspection

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD
2002-10-11, Amendment 39-12757 (67 FR 36085, May 23, 2002), with
clarification of the drain path inspection. For Model 737 series
airplanes having line numbers (L/N) 1 through 929 inclusive, with
more than 20,000 hours time-in-service or 7 years since date of
manufacture, whichever occurs first: Within 120 days after January
20, 1986 (the effective date of AD 84-20-03 R1, Amendment 39-5183
(50 FR 51235, December 16, 1985)), unless already accomplished
within the 21 months before January 20, 1986, visually inspect the
body station (BS) 1016 pressure bulkhead, including inspecting for
cracking and corrosion of the pressure bulkhead, and for debris in
the drain path in the chord frame, according to Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1075, Revision 1, dated September 2, 1983; Revision
2, dated July 13, 1984; or Revision 3, dated June 8, 2000. Remove
any obstruction to the drain hole in the frame chord and replace any
deteriorated leveling compound as noted in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1075, Revision 1, dated September 2, 1983; Revision
2, dated July 13, 1984; or Revision 3, dated June 8, 2000. Treat the
area of inspection with corrosion inhibitor BMS 3-23, or equivalent.
After the effective date of this AD, use only Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1075, Revision 3, dated June 8, 2000, to do the
actions required by this paragraph.

(h) Retained Drain Hole Enlargement

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (b) of AD
2002-10-11, Amendment 39-12757 (67 FR 36085, May 23, 2002), with
revised service bulletin requirements. For airplanes identified in
paragraph (g) of this AD: Within 1 year after January 20, 1986 (the
effective date of AD 84-20-03 R1, Amendment 39-5183 (50 FR 51235,
December 16, 1985)), accomplish the drain hole enlargement as shown
in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1075, Revision 1, dated
September 2, 1983; Revision 2, dated July 13, 1984; or Revision 3,
dated June 8, 2000. After the effective date of this AD, use only
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1075, Revision 3, dated June 8,
2000, to do the actions required by this paragraph.

(i) Retained Corrective Action With Revised Compliance Methods

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (c) of AD
2002-10-11, Amendment 39-12757 (67 FR 36085, May 23, 2002), with
revised compliance methods. If cracking or corrosion is found during
any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (j) of this AD: Before
further flight, repair according to paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of
this AD, as applicable.
    (1) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Repair according to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1075,
Revision 1, dated September 2, 1983; Revision 2, dated July 13,
1984; or Revision 3, dated June 8, 2000.
    (2) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Repair using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD.

(j) Retained Repetitive Inspections Required by Paragraph (g) of This
AD

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (d) of AD
2002-10-11, Amendment 39-12757 (67 FR 36085, May 23, 2002), with
revised actions. For airplanes identified in paragraph (g) of this
AD: Repeat the visual inspections and corrosion inhibitor treatment
specified in paragraph (g) of this AD at intervals not to exceed 2
years. Accomplishment of the initial aft pressure bulkhead
inspection required by paragraph (k) of this AD terminates the
inspection required by this paragraph.

(k) Retained Aft Bulkhead Detailed Inspection

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (e) of AD
2002-10-11, Amendment 39-12757 (67 FR 36085, May 23, 2002), with
revised terminating action. Do a detailed inspection for cracking or
corrosion of the aft pressure bulkhead at BS 1016 (including the
forward and aft sides of the pressure web, forward and aft sides of
the pressure chord, pressure chord radius,

forward and aft sides of the angle stiffener, forward and aft chord,
stringer end fitting, system penetration doublers, channel
stiffeners and fasteners, ``Z'' stiffeners and fasteners, and
fasteners common to the pressure chord and pressure web), according
to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1075, Revision 3, dated June
8, 2000. Do this inspection at the applicable time shown in
paragraph (k)(1), (k)(2), or (k)(3) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes on which an inspection has previously been
done according to the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD: Do
the inspection within 2 years since the most recent inspection
according to paragraph (g) or (j) of this AD, as applicable. For the
airplanes identified in paragraph (g) of this AD, accomplishment of
the inspection required by paragraph (k) of this AD terminates the
inspections for cracking and corrosion required by paragraph (j) of
this AD.
    (2) For airplanes having L/Ns 930 through 1042 inclusive, on
which an inspection has not previously been done according to
paragraph (g) of this AD: Do the inspection within 2 years after
June 27, 2002 (the effective date AD 2002-10-11, Amendment 39-12757
(67 FR 36085, May 23, 2002)).
    (3) For airplanes having L/Ns 1043 through 3132 inclusive, on
which an inspection has not previously been done according to
paragraph (g) of this AD: Do the inspection within 6 years since the
airplane's date of manufacture, or within 2 years after June 27,
2002 (the effective date AD 2002-10-11, Amendment 39-12757 (67 FR
36085, May 23, 2002)), whichever occurs later.

(l) Retained Repetitive Inspections

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD
2002-10-11, Amendment 39-12757 (67 FR 36085, May 23, 2002), with
revised compliance times. Repeat the inspection in paragraph (k) of
this AD at the applicable time shown in paragraph (l)(1) or (l)(2)
of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes having L/Ns 1 through 1042 inclusive: Repeat
the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2 years.
    (2) For airplanes having L/Ns 1043 through 3132 inclusive:
Repeat the inspection thereafter within 2 years since the last
inspection or within 120 days after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later.

(m) Retained Repair

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2002-10-11, Amendment 39-12757 (67 FR 36085, May 23, 2002), with
revised repair requirements. If any corrosion or cracking is found
during any inspection according to paragraph (k) or (l) of this AD:
Do the applicable action specified in paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of
this AD.
    (1) If the inspection was done prior to the effective date of
this AD: Before further flight, repair according to Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1075, Revision 3, dated June 8, 2000.
Exception: If corrosion or cracking of the web and stiffeners is
outside the limits specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1075, Revision 3, dated June 8, 2000, or if corrosion or cracking
is found in any structure not covered by the repair instructions in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1075, Revision 3, dated June 8,
2000, before further flight, repair according to a method approved
by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), or per
data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved
by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO, to make such findings. For a repair method to be approved by
the Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by this paragraph, the
Manager's approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) After the effective date of this AD, if any corrosion or
cracking is found during any inspection required by this AD: Before
further flight, repair the corrosion or cracking using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(p) of this AD.

(n) New Drain Path Repetitive Inspection

    For airplanes having L/N 1 through 3132 inclusive: Within 2
years since the last inspection in accordance with paragraph (k) of
this AD or within 2 years after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later: Do a general visual inspection of the drain
path in the chord frame for debris. Remove any obstruction to the
drain hole in the frame chord and replace any deteriorated leveling
compound. Treat the area of inspection with corrosion inhibitor BMS
3-23, or equivalent. Repeat the actions required by this paragraph
at intervals not to exceed 2 years. Do all actions required by this
paragraph in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1075, Revision 3, dated June 8,
2000. For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is a
visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or
assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This
level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless
otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual
access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of
inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such
as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may
require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands,
ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area
being checked.

(o) New Optional Repetitive Aft Pressure Bulkhead Inspection for
Certain Airplanes and Corrective Action

    For airplanes having L/Ns 1043 through 3132 inclusive: In lieu
of performing the inspection required by paragraph (l) of this AD,
operators may do the actions specified in this paragraph. Within 2
years from the most recent aft pressure bulkhead inspection done as
specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1075, Revision 1,
dated September 2, 1983; Revision 2, dated July 13, 1984; or
Revision 3, dated June 8, 2000; or within 120 days after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a detailed
inspection for cracking or corrosion of the aft side of the aft
pressure bulkhead at BS 1016 (including the aft sides of the
pressure web, aft sides of the pressure chord, pressure chord
radius, aft chord, stringer end fitting, system penetration
doublers, and fasteners common to the pressure chord and pressure
web), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1075, Revision 3, dated June 8, 2000.
If any corrosion or cracking is found: Before further flight, repair
the corrosion or cracking using a method approved in accordance with
the procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD. Repeat the
inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 90 days. Within 2
years after the initial inspection done in accordance with this
paragraph: Do the actions specified in paragraph (k) of this AD, and
repeat thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2 years.

(p) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the
Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to
be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2002-10-11,
Amendment 39-12757 (67 FR 36085, May 23, 2002), are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

 (q) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Pohl,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 9, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-19925 Filed 8-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15658-15659]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07363]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Securities Act of 1933 Release No. 33-10476/April 5, 2018; Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 Release No. 34-82997/April 5, 2018]

Order Regarding Review of FASB Accounting Support Fee for 2018
Under Section 109 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

    The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the ``Act'') provides that the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') may recognize,
as generally accepted for purposes of the securities laws, any
accounting principles established by a standard setting body that meets
certain criteria. Consequently, Section 109 of the Act provides that
all of the budget of such a standard setting body shall be payable from
an annual accounting support fee assessed and collected against each
issuer, as may be necessary or appropriate to pay for the budget and
provide for the expenses of the standard setting body, and to provide
for an independent, stable source of funding, subject to review by the
Commission. Under Section 109(f) of the Act, the amount of fees
collected for a fiscal year shall not exceed the ``recoverable budget
expenses'' of the standard setting body. Section 109(h) amends Section
13(b)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require issuers to
pay the allocable share of a reasonable annual accounting support fee
or fees, determined in accordance with Section 109 of the Act.
    On April 25, 2003, the Commission issued a policy statement
concluding that the Financial Accounting Standards Board (``FASB'') and
its parent organization, the Financial Accounting Foundation (``FAF''),
satisfied the criteria for an accounting standard-setting body under
the Act, and recognizing the FASB's financial accounting and reporting
standards as ``generally accepted'' under Section 108 of the Act.\1\ As
a consequence of that recognition, the Commission undertook a review of
the FASB's accounting

support fee for calendar year 2018.\2\ In connection with its review,
the Commission also reviewed the budget for the FAF and the FASB for
calendar year 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Financial Reporting Release No. 70.
    \2\ The Financial Accounting Foundation's Board of Trustees
approved the FASB's budget on November 14, 2017. The FAF submitted
the approved budget to the Commission on November 17, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 109 of the Act also provides that the standard setting body
can have additional sources of revenue for its activities, such as
earnings from sales of publications, provided that each additional
source of revenue shall not jeopardize, in the judgment of the
Commission, the actual or perceived independence of the standard
setter. In this regard, the Commission also considered the
interrelation of the operating budgets of the FAF, the FASB, and the
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (``GASB''), the FASB's sister
organization, which sets accounting standards used by state and local
government entities. The Commission has been advised by the FAF that
neither the FAF, the FASB, nor the GASB accept contributions from the
accounting profession.
    The Commission understands that the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') has determined the FASB's spending of the 2018 accounting
support fee is sequestrable under the Budget Control Act of 2011.\3\ So
long as sequestration is applicable, we anticipate that the FAF will
work with the Commission and Commission staff as appropriate regarding
its implementation of sequestration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ``OMB Report Pursuant to the Sequestration Transparency
Act of 2012'' (P.L. 112-155), page 222 of 224 at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/stareport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission requests that the FAF and the FASB continue to
provide the Commission with quarterly updates of their activities,
including but not limited to their efforts to include a wide-range of
views from investors, preparers, auditors, academics, and other
constituent groups, and their efforts to improve the selection process
for FASB and FAF members.
    After its review, the Commission determined that the 2018 annual
accounting support fee for the FASB is consistent with Section 109 of
the Act. Accordingly,
    It is ordered, pursuant to Section 109 of the Act, that the FASB
may act in accordance with this determination of the Commission.

    By the Commission.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-07363 Filed 4-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 5, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42869-42870]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14198]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 5, 2023 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1083; Airspace Docket No. 23-AWA-2]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class C Airspace; Daytona Beach International
Airport, Daytona Beach, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Daytona Beach, FL Class C airspace
description to update the airport name, and the geographic coordinates
of the airport reference point (ARP) to match the FAA's National
Airspace System Resources (NASR) database information. Additionally,
this action amends the airspace description by updating the header
format. This action does not change the boundaries, altitudes, or
operating requirements of the Class C airspace area.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, October 5, 2023. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: A copy of this final rule, and all background material may
be viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the FAA Docket number.
Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website.
It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact the Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it updates the information in the Daytona Beach, FL Class
C airspace description.

History

    During a review of the Daytona Beach, FL Class C airspace
description, the FAA identified the need to update the name and ARP
geographic coordinates for the Daytona Beach Regional Airport, and to
update the text header format for the Daytona Beach Class C airspace
description as published in FAA Order JO 7400.11G.

Incorporation by Reference

    Class C airspace areas are published in paragraph 4000 of FAA Order
JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This
document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO
7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA
Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this document. These amendments will be published in the
next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by updating the Daytona Beach, FL
Class C airspace description as published in FAA Order JO 7400.11G,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points. The name ``Daytona Beach
Regional Airport'' is changed to ``Daytona Beach International
Airport'' to match the Airport Master Record database. The ARP
geographic coordinates are updated from ``lat. 29[deg]10'52'' N, long.
81[deg]03'21'' W'' to ``lat. 29[deg]10'48'' N, long. 81[deg]03'29'' W''
which matches the FAA's NASR database information. Additionally, the
airport name is moved from the first line in the text header of the
description to the second line. These changes align with the current
formatting standard. In the body of the Class C description, the name
``Daytona Beach Regional Airport'' is changed to ``Daytona Beach
International Airport.''
    This action consists of administrative changes only and does not
affect the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the
airspace. Therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)
is unnecessary.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated,
does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of amending the Daytona
Beach, FL Class C airspace description to update the airport name, and
geographic coordinates of the airport reference point (ARP) to match
the FAA's NASR database information, qualifies for

categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part
1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts:
Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes
from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that
designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and
reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D,
and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting
Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any
potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA
Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the
FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a
normally categorically excluded action may have a significant
environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA
has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant
preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact
study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 4000 Class C Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO FL C Daytona Beach, FL [Amended]

Daytona Beach International Airport, FL
    (Lat. 29[deg]10'48'' N, long. 81[deg]03'29'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
4,000 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of the Daytona Beach
International Airport; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200
feet MSL to and including 4,000 feet MSL within a 10-mile radius of
Daytona Beach International Airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 29, 2023.
Brian Konie,
Acting Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2023-14198 Filed 7-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 54581]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19364]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-1117]

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of
16 New Drug Applications; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice
that appeared in the Federal Register on May 14, 2020. The document
announced the withdrawal of approval (as of June 15, 2020) of 16 new
drug applications (NDAs) from multiple applicants. The document
indicated that FDA was withdrawing approval of NDA 050641, Monodox
(doxycycline monohydrate) Capsules, Equivalent to (EQ) 50 milligrams
(mg) base, EQ 75 mg base, and EQ 100 mg base, after receiving a
withdrawal request from Aqua Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 707 Eagleview Blvd.,
Suite 200, Exton, PA 19341. Before FDA withdrew the approval of NDA
050641, Aqua Pharmaceuticals, LLC, informed FDA that it did not want
the approval of the NDA withdrawn. Because Aqua Pharmaceuticals, LLC,
timely requested that approval of the NDA not be withdrawn, the
approval of NDA 050641 is still in effect.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Lehrfeld, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6226, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-3137<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of May 14, 2020 (85
FR 28950), appearing on page 28950 in FR Doc. 2020-10367, the following
correction is made:
    On page 28951, in the table, the entry for NDA 050641 is removed.

    Dated: August 27, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-19364 Filed 9-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 72 (Friday, April 13, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22229-22232]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8924]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 261 and 266

[EPA-RCRA-2008-0678; FRL-9659-7]
RIN 2050-AG52

Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is
taking final action on two of six technical amendments that were
withdrawn in a June 4, 2010, Federal Register partial withdrawal
notice. The two amendments that are the subject of today's final rule
are: A correction of the typographical error in the entry ``K107'' in a
table listing hazardous wastes from specific sources; and a conforming
change to alert certain recycling facilities that they have existing
certification and notification requirements under the Land Disposal
Restrictions regulations. The other four amendments that were withdrawn
in the June 2010 partial withdrawal notice will remain withdrawn unless
and until EPA determines action is warranted in the future.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 14, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-RCRA-2008-0678. All documents in the docket are listed on the
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will
be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically at www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the OSWER Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the RCRA Docket is (202) 566-
0270.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim O'Leary, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, MC
5304P, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, Phone: (703)
308-8827; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Why is EPA publishing this final rule?

    On March 18, 2010, EPA published in the Federal Register a Direct
Final rule entitled, Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and
Clarifications Rule (75 FR 12989) (hereafter the Direct Final rule).
This Direct Final rule included approximately 90 specific technical
amendments to correct or clarify parts of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste regulations. At the same time, EPA
also published a parallel proposed rule (75 FR 13006) that requested
comment on the same changes.
    We stated in that Direct Final rule that if we received adverse
comment on any of the amendments by May 3, 2010, the affected
amendments would not take effect and we would publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register of those specific amendments. We
received some adverse comments and as a result withdrew six amendments
on June 4, 2010 (75 FR 31716). The remaining amendments for which we
did not receive adverse comment became effective on June 16, 2010.
    The six amendments that were withdrawn are:
     40 CFR 262.34(a)--related to the hazardous waste
accumulation time for large quantity generators;
     40 CFR 262.34(a)(2)--related to the date upon which each
period of accumulation begins and which must be clearly marked and
visible for inspection on each container and tank;
     40 CFR 262.34(a)(5)--related to the closure requirements
for tanks, containers, drip pads and containment buildings;
     40 CFR 262.34(a)(1)(iv)(B)--also related to the closure
requirements for tanks, containers, drip pads and containment
buildings;
     40 CFR 266.20(b)--related to recyclable materials used in
a manner constituting disposal; and
     40 CFR 261.32(a)--related to the entry for hazardous waste
number K107 in a table.
    EPA is publishing today's final rule to address the adverse
comments received on the last two amendments listed above and to
finalize these amendments. The amendments we are finalizing are: (1)
Making the conforming change to 40 CFR 266.20(b); and (2) correcting
the entry ``K107'' in the table at 40 CFR 261.32(a). The other four
amendments that were withdrawn will remain withdrawn unless and until
EPA decides to take action on them in the future.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the public docket for this rule regarding the specific
comments that were submitted on the four amendments that are not
being finalized today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this action include facilities
subject to the RCRA hazardous waste regulations and states implementing
the RCRA hazardous waste regulations.

III. Acronyms

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Acronym                            Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFR.......................................  United States Code of
                                             Federal Regulations.
EPA.......................................  United States Environmental
                                             Protection Agency.
HSWA......................................  Hazardous and Solid Waste
                                             Amendments.
OMB.......................................  Office of Management and
                                             Budget.
RCRA......................................  Resource Conservation and
                                             Recovery Act.
U.S.C.....................................  United States Code.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Background

A. What is the legal authority for this final rule?

    This rule is authorized under Sections 1004 and 3001 through 3005
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 6903, 6921-6925.

B. Description of Final Rule Amendments to Parts 261 and 266

    For each of the two technical corrections being finalized today,
the following sections provide a summary of the Agency's original
proposal, a discussion of the adverse comments received on the
proposal, and the Agency's response to those comments.
1. Correction to 40 CFR 261.32(a)
    In our March 18, 2010, Direct Final rule (and companion proposed
rule), we amended the entry for K107 in the table at 40 CFR 261.32 by
correcting the misspelled chemical name ``* * * carboxylic acid
hydrazines'' to read ``* * * carboxylic acid hydrazides.'' We explained
that this was a misspelling as evidenced by the original listing
background document supporting the K107 listing, which discusses
``carboxylic acid hydrazides.''
    However, in the process of making this correction in the Direct
Final rule, we inadvertently omitted the word ``acid'' in ``carboxylic
acid hydrazides'' from the entry for K107. We withdrew this correction
given the omission of the word ``acid'' on June 4, 2010 (see 75 FR
31716). Today's final rule corrects the misspelled chemical name.
2. Conforming Change to 40 CFR 266.20(b)
    In 1988, EPA promulgated various certification and notification
requirements under the Land Disposal Restrictions (``LDR'') regulatory
program (53 FR 31138, August 17, 1988). This rule included, in 40 CFR
268.7(b)(8), specific certification and notification requirements for
recyclers using recyclable materials in a manner constituting disposal.
This provision included a reference to 40 CFR 266.20(b), a separate
provision that specifies regulatory requirements for certain use
constituting disposal activities. However, at that time, the Agency
failed to add a similar reference in 40 CFR 266.20(b) alerting
recyclers to the LDR certification and notification requirements in 40
CFR 268.7(b)(8). The LDR certification and notification requirement for
use constituting disposal was later renumbered from 40 CFR 268.7(b)(8)
to 40 CFR 268.7(b)(6).
    In the March 18, 2010, Direct Final rule (and parallel proposed
rule), 40 CFR 266.20(b) was revised by adding the phrase ``and the
recycler complies with Sec.  268.7(b)(6) of this chapter'' to alert
recyclers to the existing LDR certification and notification
requirement that is located elsewhere in the regulations.
    EPA received one adverse comment concerning this amendment from
Safe Food and Fertilizer (hereafter referred to as Safe Food), a
grassroots citizens' organization. In their comments, Safe Food stated
that making this change to 40 CFR 266.20(b) would not be a `technical
correction' but rather the promulgation of a new rule. Safe Food stated
that when, in 2006, EPA amended 40 CFR 268.7(b)(6) as part of a larger
RCRA Burden Reduction Initiative to require less frequent notification
and certification (71 FR 16862, April 4, 2006), many states did not
adopt this less-stringent provision and retained the more frequent
notification and certification requirements.\2\ Safe Food believes that
because the amendment to 40 CFR 266.20(b) references the federal
requirements in 40 CFR 268.7(b)(6), a state that adopts this amendment
will also be inadvertently forced to adopt the more recent federal
less-stringent notification and certification provision in 40 CFR
268.7(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ When 40 CFR 268.7(b)(6) was revised in 2006, it was deemed
less stringent than the previous version, and therefore states with
final authorization for their RCRA base program were not required to
adopt it. Section 3009 of RCRA allows states to be more stringent
than the federal hazardous waste rules. Specifically, it states, ``*
* * Nothing in this title shall be construed to prohibit any State
or political subdivision thereof from imposing any requirements,
including those for site selection, which are more stringent than
those imposed by such regulations * * *''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA disagrees. The amendment simply alerts persons subject to 40
CFR 266.20(b) that they also have an existing obligation to certify and
notify under the LDR regulations. If and when states adopt this
reference, they will translate the reference into their own existing
regulatory structure and the reference will point to the existing state
LDR certification and notification requirements, not the federal
requirements. Thus, adoption of today's amendment by a state as part of
their authorized RCRA program will not change that state's existing
authorized LDR notification and certification requirements for
recyclers using materials in a manner constituting disposal. The
proposed addition to section 40 CFR 266.20(b) is an informational
reference to alert recyclers to the existing LDR certification and
notification obligations applicable to their activities. When
incorporated into state regulations, the reference will refer to the
appropriate existing state LDR requirements.
    Safe Food also commented that the proposed change would be contrary
to law, specifically, to 42 U.S.C. 6929. They believe such a change
would ``prohibit a State from requiring that the State be provided with
a copy of each manifest used in conjunction with hazardous waste which
is generated within that State or transported to a treatment, storage,
or disposal facility.'' Safe Food argues that the proposed amendment
would change states' regulations governing materials used in a manner
constituting disposal, including any state manifesting requirements,
because the change made to the federal regulations would go into effect
immediately on the effective date in all states.
    The Agency disagrees. In the Direct Final rule (and parallel
proposed rule), EPA explained that amendments to 40 CFR part 266 would
only go into effect in authorized states if and when a state adopts the
amendment. When an authorized state adopts this amendment, it will not
retain the federal regulatory citation. The state will translate the
citation into the appropriate state citation to refer to the existing
state LDR certification and notification requirements for materials
used in a manner constituting disposal (see section V.B. of this
notice). Thus, this amendment will not change a state's existing
regulations for materials used in a manner constituting disposal,
including any existing state manifesting requirements.
    Finally, Safe Food argued that the clarification to 40 CFR
266.20(b) is not necessary because recyclers subject to 40 CFR
266.20(b) are also subject to 40 CFR 266.23, which references all of 40
CFR part 268 (which would include 40 CFR 268.7(b)(6)). Again, the
Agency disagrees. The parenthetical phrase at the end of 40 CFR
266.23(a), ``these requirements do not apply to products which contain
these recycled materials under the provisions of 40 CFR 266.20(b) of
this chapter,'' specifically exempts materials regulated under 40 CFR
266.20(b) from 40 CFR 266.23. This means that the reference in 40 CFR
266.23 to 40 CFR part 268 (which would include 40 CFR 268.7(b)(6)) is
not applicable to, and not likely to be seen by, persons managing
materials under 40 CFR 266.20(b). Thus, the amendment being promulgated
today is a useful and important informational aid alerting recyclers
managing hazardous wastes under 40 CFR 266.20(b) to their existing

LDR notification and certification requirements.
    As explained above, EPA does not agree that the proposed amendment
will have any of the consequences that Safe Food is concerned about.
Thus, to better alert recyclers to their existing LDR certification and
notification requirements, EPA is today promulgating the change to add
a reference to 40 CFR 266.20(b) as was proposed.

V. State Authorization

A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States

    Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize a qualified state to
administer its own hazardous waste program within the state in lieu of
the federal program. Following authorization, EPA retains enforcement
authority under Sections 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA, although
authorized states have primary enforcement responsibility. The
standards and requirements for state authorization are found at 40 CFR
part 271.
    Prior to enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984 (HSWA), a state with final RCRA authorization administered its
hazardous waste program entirely in lieu of EPA administering the
federal program in that state. The federal requirements no longer
applied in the authorized state, and EPA could not issue permits for
any facilities in that state, since only the state was authorized to
issue RCRA permits. When new, more stringent federal requirements were
promulgated, the state was obligated to enact equivalent authorities
within specified time frames. However, the new federal requirements did
not take effect in an authorized state until the state adopted the
federal requirements as state law.
    In contrast, under RCRA section 3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), which
was added by HSWA, new requirements and prohibitions imposed under HSWA
authority take effect in authorized states at the same time that they
take effect in unauthorized states. EPA is directed by the statute to
implement these requirements and prohibitions in authorized states,
including the issuance of permits, until the state is granted
authorization to do so. While states must still adopt HSWA related
provisions as state law to retain final authorization, EPA implements
the HSWA provisions in authorized states until the states do so.
    RCRA section 3009 allows states to impose standards more stringent
than those in the federal program (see also 40 CFR 271.1). Therefore,
authorized states may, but are not required to, adopt federal
regulations, both HSWA and non-HSWA, that are considered less stringent
than previous federal regulations.

B. Effect on State Authorization

    Today's Final rule promulgates two technical corrections to
regulations in 40 CFR parts 261 and 266 under non-HSWA authority. Thus,
the technical corrections and clarifications finalized today under non-
HSWA authority would be applicable on the effective date only in those
states that do not have final authorization of their base RCRA
programs. Moreover, authorized states are required to modify their
programs only when EPA promulgates federal regulations that are more
stringent or broader in scope than the authorized state regulations.
For those changes that are less stringent or reduce the scope of the
federal program, states are not required to modify their program. This
is a result of section 3009 of RCRA, which allows states to impose more
stringent regulations than the federal program. Today's final rule is
considered to be neither more nor less stringent than the current
standards. Therefore, authorized states are not required to modify
their programs to adopt the technical corrections promulgated today,
although we strongly urge authorized states to adopt these technical
corrections to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding by the regulated
community and the public.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    As explained above, this rule takes final action on two amendments
for which we received adverse comment in response to our March 18,
2010, RCRA Technical Corrections and Clarifications Direct Final rule
(and parallel proposed rule). Because today's Final rule does not
create any new regulatory requirements, but rather makes technical
corrections, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866: Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) or
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (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.);
     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: Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045: Protection
of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Does not involve technical standards; thus the
requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply; and
     Does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because as the rule does
not make any substantive change, it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to the
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impact of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action
does not create any new regulatory requirements, but rather

clarifies existing requirements and makes conforming changes.

B. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
information required by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et
seq., as amended) to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This
action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule
will be effective May 14, 2012.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 266

    Environmental protection, Energy, Hazardous waste, Recycling,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 4, 2012.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y), and
6938.

0
2. In Sec.  261.32(a), the table is amended by revising the entry for
``K107'' to read as follows:

Sec.  261.32  Hazardous wastes from specific sources.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Industry and EPA  hazardous waste
                No.                   Hazardous waste     Hazard code
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Organic chemicals

                              * * * * * * *
K107...............................  Column bottoms    (C,T)
                                      from product
                                      separation from
                                      the production
                                      of 1,1-
                                      dimethylhydrazi
                                      ne (UDMH) from
                                      carboxylic acid
                                      hydrazides.

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

* * * * *

PART 266--STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS WASTES
AND SPECIFIC TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES

0
3. The authority citation for part 266 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6922-6925, 6935-6937, unless
otherwise noted.

0
4. Amend Sec.  266.20 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  266.20  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (b) Products produced for the general public's use that are used in
a manner that constitutes disposal and that contain recyclable
materials are not presently subject to regulation if the recyclable
materials have undergone a chemical reaction in the course of producing
the products so as to become inseparable by physical means and if such
products meet the applicable treatment standards in subpart D of part
268 (or applicable prohibition levels in Sec.  268.32 of this chapter
or RCRA section 3004(d), where no treatment standards have been
established) for each recyclable material (i.e., hazardous waste) that
they contain, and the recycler complies with Sec.  268.7(b)(6) of this
chapter.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-8924 Filed 4-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 226 (Monday, November 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74783-74784]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25835]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2020-0027-N-34]

Agency Request for Emergency Processing of Collection of
Information by the Office of Management and Budget

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and its
implementing regulations, this document provides notice that FRA is
submitting the following Information Collection Request to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) to collect information on ridership data
and certified schedule metrics as required by the recently issued final
rule on Metrics and Minimum Standards for Intercity Passenger Rail
Service. FRA requests emergency processing and OMB authorization to
collect the information after publication of this Notice for a period
of six (6) months.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection
Clearance Officer, by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by telephone: (202)
493-6192.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 16, 2008, President George W.
Bush signed the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008,
Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4907 (PRIIA) into law. Section 207 of
PRIIA requires FRA and Amtrak jointly to develop new or improved
metrics and minimum standards for measuring the performance and service
quality of intercity passenger train operations, including cost
recovery, on-time performance and minutes of delay, ridership, on-board
services, stations, facilities, equipment, and other services.
    Section 207 also calls for consultation with the Surface
Transportation Board, rail carriers over whose rail lines Amtrak trains
operate, States, Amtrak employees, and groups representing Amtrak
passengers, as appropriate.
    Section 207 further provides that the metrics, at a minimum, must
include: The percentage of avoidable and fully allocated operating
costs covered by passenger revenues on each route; ridership per train
mile operated; measures of on-time performance and delays incurred by
intercity passenger trains on the rail lines of each rail carrier; and,
for long-distance routes, measures of connectivity with other routes in
all regions currently receiving Amtrak service and the transportation
needs of communities and populations that are not well-served by other
forms of intercity transportation.
    Section 207 also provides that the FRA Administrator must collect
the necessary data and publish a quarterly report on the performance
and service quality of intercity passenger train operations, including
Amtrak's cost recovery, ridership, on-time performance and minutes of
delay, causes of delay, on-board services, stations, facilities,
equipment, and other services.
    In connection with the Congressional mandate, FRA's Metrics and
Minimum Standards for Intercity Passenger Rail Service final rule \1\
sets forth a number of metrics. This emergency information request is
for only two (2) of those metrics. A separate information collection
request will be published at a later date, covering all information
collections required under the final rule, which includes Amtrak
reporting data to FRA associated with a total 17 of these metrics on a
quarterly basis and 4 on an annual basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 85 FR 72971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As provided under 5 CFR 1320.13, FRA is requesting emergency
processing for Section 273.5(b) Ridership data metrics and 273.5(c)
Certified schedule metrics. FRA cannot reasonably comply with normal
clearance procedures since they would be reasonably likely to disrupt
the function of the rule. As required by 49 CFR part 273, Section
273.5(b), Amtrak is expected to begin reporting to FRA on the Ridership
data metric in December 2020 and then by the 15th day of each month
thereafter. As required by 49 CFR 273, Section 273.5(c), Amtrak is also
expected to begin reporting to FRA on the Certified schedule metric on
December 16, 2020, and then subsequently report monthly for six months,
again in November 2021, and then every 12 months thereafter. Therefore,
FRA cannot wait the typical 60-day period for public comment.
Accordingly, FRA is requesting OMB approval as soon as possible (i.e.,
5 business days after publication of this Notice) for this collection
of information.

    The associated collection of information is summarized below.
    Title: Metrics and Minimum Standards for Intercity Passenger Rail
Service.
    Reporting Burden:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average time
               CFR section                     Respondent universe       Total annual    per responses      Total annual burden hours       Total cost
                                                                           responses        (hour)                                        equivalent \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
273.5(b)--Ridership data.................  1 railroad.................              12               1  22 hours (10 hour start-up                $1,704
                                                                                burden + average response time).
273.5(c)--Certified schedule.............  1 railroad.................               7               1  27 hours (20 hour start-up                 2,092
                                                                                burden + average response time).
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total................................  1 railroad.................              19               1  49 hours........................           3,796
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \2\ The total cost equivalent is derived from the Surface
Transportation Board's Full Year Wage A&B data series using the
appropriate employee group hourly wage rate that includes a 75-
percent overhead charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Form Numbers: n/a.
    Respondent Universe: 1 (Amtrak).
    Frequency of Submission: varied; monthly; yearly.
    Total Annual Responses: 19.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 49 hours.
    Total Cost Equivalent: $3,796.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that a respondent is not required to
respond to, conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Brett A. Jortland,
Deputy Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2020-25835 Filed 11-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


FILE NAME: company. wpt ( 7/ 1/ 2005) ( xml) Template Number P25 COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE ( 1/ 1/ 2005)

EPA Registration Division contact: Bipin Gandhi 703 308 8811]

TEMPLATE:

[ Cognis Corporation]

[ 6E7067]

EPA has received a pesticide petition ([ 6E7067]) from [ Cognis Corporation], [ 4900 Este Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45232] proposing, pursuant to section 408( d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.

2. to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for [ Soybean Oil , Polyethoxylated; the Poly( oxyethylene) Content Averages 10 moles or Greater] in or on [ all] the raw agricultural commodity] [ when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations under 40 CFR § 180.960 ( polymers).] EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant metabolism. [ Cognis Corporation is petitioning EPA to Exempt Soybean Oil, Polyethoxylated ( Trade Name Agnique SBO 10) from the requirement of a tolerance since this inert ingredient qualifies under the polymer exemption criteria ( low risk polymer) of 40 CFR § 723.250( e). Consequently, plant metabolism data is not necessary.]

2. Analytical method. [ Since the petitioner is requesting a tolerance exemption an analytical method for residues of the polymer in food crops is not required.]

B. Toxicological Profile 2 [ Where it can be determined that an inert ingredient meets the definition of an exempt or low risk polymer ( 40 CFR § 723.250) then the production of data is generally not required by EPA to establish a tolerance or the exemption from a tolerance. Cognis Corporation asserts that the data and information provided below are sufficient to establish the potential activity, toxicity, and risks associated with Agnique SBO 10 as an inert ingredient when applied to growing crops or raw agricultural commodities. Further, in the case of chemical substances described as polymers, EPA has established criteria, which when they are met or exceeded, are considered low risk. These criteria are described in 40 CFR § 723.250, and identify polymers that are relatively unreactive, stable, and typically are not absorbed when compared to other chemical substances including some polymers. The criteria described in 40 CFR § 723.250, and addressed below, will generally exclude polymer chemicals that are not well known and understood, and potentially present a significant risk of adverse effects. Therefore, the polymers that meet or exceed these criteria can be considered minimal or negligible risk. As present below, Soybean Oil, Polyethoxylated conforms to the definition of a low risk polymer as described in 40 CFR § 723.250. a. Agnique SBO 10 is not a cationic polymer, nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment. b. Agnique SBO 10 contains as the integral part of its composition the atomic elements hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen. c. Agnique SBO 10 does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any elements other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250( d)( 2)( ii). d. Agnique SBO 10 is not designed nor reasonably anticipated to substantially depolymerize, degrade, or decompose. e. Agnique SBO 10 is manufactured from monomers that are listed in the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA Section 5 exemption. f. Agnique SBO 10 is not a water absorbing polymer. g. Agnique SBO 10 does not contain any reactive functional groups. h. The number average molecular weight of Agnique SBO 10 is approximately 1,900 daltons. Substances with molecular weights greater than 400 daltons are generally not absorbed through the intact skin, and substances with molecular weights greater than 1,000 daltons are generally not absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal ( GI) tract. Chemicals not absorbed through the skin or GU tract are incapable of eliciting a toxic response via these routes of exposures. i. Agnique SBO 10 contains less than 2% oligomeric material below molecular weight of 500 daltons and 25% oligomeric material below 1,000 daltons.] 3 1. Dietary exposure. [ Since Agnique SBO 10 is considered a low risk polymer there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from exposure to this polymer from food or drinking water or from aggregate exposure.]

2. Non dietary exposure. [ Since Agnique SBO 10 is considered a low risk polymer there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from exposure to this polymer from non dietary means.]

D. Cumulative Effects [ At this time, there is no information to indicate that any toxic effects produced by Agnique SBO 10 are cumulative with those of any other chemical. Given the compound's categorization as a low risk polymer, and its proposed use in pesticide formulation, there is no expectation of increased risk due to cumulative exposure.]

E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population. [ Since Agnique SBO 10 is considered a low risk polymer, no adverse effects are expected.]

2. Infants and children. [ Since Agnique SBO 10 is considered a low risk polymer, no adverse effects are expected.]

F. International Tolerances [ There are no CODEX maximum residue levels ( MRLs) established for residues of Agnique SBO 10 in or on crops or commodities at this time.]


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 118 (Friday, June 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 35372]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15119]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-D-0052]

Food Allergen Labeling Exemption Petitions and Notifications;
Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (``FDA'' or ``we'') is
announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled ``Food
Allergen Labeling Exemption Petitions and Notifications.'' This
guidance explains FDA's current thinking on the preparation of
regulatory submissions for obtaining exemptions for ingredients from
the labeling requirements for major food allergens in the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) through submission of either a
petition or a notification.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances
at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to
the Office of Nutrition, Labeling and Dietary Supplements, Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug
Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740. Send
two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing
your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance.
    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Bonnette, Center for Food and
Applied Nutrition (HFS-255), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint
Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of May 8, 2014 (79 FR 26435), we announced
the availability of a draft guidance entitled ``Draft Guidance for
Industry: Food Allergen Labeling Exemption Petitions and
Notifications'' and gave interested parties an opportunity to submit
comments on the draft guidance at any time and comments on the proposed
collection of information by September 25, 2014. We received several
comments and revised the guidance accordingly.
    The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004
(FALCPA) (Title II of Pub. L. 108-282) amended the FD&C Act by defining
the term ``major food allergen'' and stating that foods regulated under
the FD&C Act are misbranded unless they declare the presence of each
major food allergens on the product label using the common or usual
name of that major food allergen. Section 201(qq) of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 321(qq)) now defines a major food allergen as ``[m]ilk, egg,
fish (e.g., bass, flounder, or cod), Crustacean shellfish (e.g., crab,
lobster, or shrimp), tree nuts (e.g., almonds, pecans, or walnuts),
wheat, peanuts, and soybeans'' and also as a food ingredient that
contains protein derived from such foods. The definition excludes any
highly refined oil derived from a major food allergen and any
ingredient derived from such highly refined oil.
    In some cases, the production of an ingredient derived from a major
food allergen may eliminate the allergenic proteins in that derived
ingredient such that it is not a risk for food allergic individuals. In
addition, a major food allergen may be used as an ingredient or as a
component of an ingredient such that the level of allergenic protein in
finished food products does not cause an allergic response that
presents a risk for food allergic individuals. Therefore, FALCPA
provides two mechanisms through which such ingredients may become
exempt from the labeling requirement of section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C
Act (21 U.S.C. 343(w)(1)). An ingredient may obtain an exemption
through submission and approval of a petition containing scientific
evidence that demonstrates that the ingredient ``does not cause an
allergic response that poses a risk to human health'' (section
403(w)(6) of the FD&C Act). Alternately, an ingredient may become
exempt through submission of a notification containing scientific
evidence showing that the ingredient ``does not contain allergenic
protein'' or that there has been a previous determination through a
premarket approval process under section 409 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
348) that the ingredient ``does not cause an allergic response that
poses a risk to human health'' (section 403(w)(7) of the FD&C Act).
    The guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). This guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on Food Allergen Labeling Exemption Petitions
and Notifications. It does not create or confer any rights for or on
any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an
alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of applicable
statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance contains information collection provisions that are
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collection of information in this guidance was approved under OMB
control number 0910-0792.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either http://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances or http://www.regulations.gov.
Use the FDA Web site listed in the previous sentence to find the most
current version of the guidance.

    Dated: June 16, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-15119 Filed 6-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: July 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 137)]
[Notices]
[Page 40862]
[DOCID:fr16jy08-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-433-000]

Canyon Creek Compression Company; Notice of Application

July 9, 2008.
    Take notice that on June 30, 2008, Canyon Creek Compression Company
(Canyon), 3250 Lacey Road, 7th Floor, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515,
filed in the above referenced docket an application pursuant to section
7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Sections 157.7 and 157.18 of the
Commission's regulations for an order granting a certificate of public
convenience to abandon: (1) Its 22,000 horsepower (HP) compressor
station and other appurtenant facilities located in Uinta County,
Wyoming (CS 730) as authorized in Docket No. CP80-547, as amended; (2)
its blanket certificate issued in Docket No. 89-1497-000 which
authorized Canyon to compress/transport natural gas in interstate
commerce for interstate pipelines and others pursuant to Subpart G of
Part 284 of the Commission's regulations; (3) its blanket certificate
issued in Docket No. CP92-18-000 which authorized Canyon to engage in
certain routine jurisdictional activities and for permission and
approval to abandon certain services and facilities, as specified in
Subpart F of Part 157 of the Commission's regulations; and (4) its 10-
inch tap located in Uinta County, Wyoming constructed under Canyon's
blanket certificate in Docket No. CP92-18-000 used to deliver gas to
Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River). Canyon is also
seeking authorization to be granted a three year period in which to
determine the ultimate disposition of its facilities, whether it is by
sale or physical removal of all or a portion of the facilities, all as
more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed
on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter
the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at (866) 208-
3676, or TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Bruce
H. Newsome, Vice President, Canyon Creek Compression Company, 3250
Lacey Road, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515-7918, or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: July 30, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-16212 Filed 7-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P