[Federal Register: July 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 131)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 38905-38908]
[DOCID:fr08jy08-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0184; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-140-AD;
Amendment 39-15575; AD 2008-13-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -
300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. This AD requires various repetitive inspections for cracking
of the upper frame to side frame splice of the fuselage, and other
specified and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also provides
for an optional preventive modification, which terminates the
repetitive inspections. This AD results from a report that the upper
frame of the fuselage was severed between stringers S-13L and S-14L at
station 747, and the adjacent frame at station 767 had a 1.3-inch-long
crack at the same stringer location. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct fatigue cracking of the upper frame to side frame splice of
the fuselage, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
frame and adjacent lap joint. This reduced structural integrity can
increase loading in the fuselage skin, which will accelerate skin crack
growth and result in decompression of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective August 12, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 12,
2008.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-
2207.

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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
917-6447; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
certain Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November
13, 2007 (72 FR 63831). That NPRM proposed to require various
repetitive inspections for cracking of the upper frame to side frame
splice of the fuselage, and other specified and corrective actions if
necessary. That NPRM also provides for an optional preventive
modification, which would terminate the repetitive inspections.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Requests To Clarify Certain Paragraphs

    Boeing, Southwest Airlines (SWA), United Airlines (UA), and the Air
Transport Association (ATA) on behalf of its member UA, ask that
certain language in certain paragraphs of the NPRM be clarified, as
follows:
    Boeing states that the intent of paragraph (h) of the NPRM is
unclear, and the conditional statement could be misinterpreted. Boeing
notes that the statement ``the structure that has been damaged is not
covered in the structural repair manual'' (SRM) will likely be
interpreted differently by each airline. Boeing adds that this frame
area is relatively complex with a frame splice, stringer clips, and, in
some cases, a shear tie in the area of the repair. Boeing states that
only specific SRM repairs can be used to fix the frame in this complex
area; for that reason, the referenced service bulletin specifically
lists the SRM sections that can be used, and recommends contacting
Boeing if the existing repairs are not per these sections. Boeing notes
that there are other frames and general formed section repairs in the
SRM that operators could have used that may or may not work for this
area; for those cases or others that may not have been repaired in
accordance with the SRM, Boeing would like to evaluate them for
structural adequacy. Boeing believes the intent of paragraph (h) is to
cover this situation, except to refer to paragraph (j) of the NPRM
instead of contacting Boeing. Boeing recommends that paragraph (h) be
rewritten as follows: ``If during the accomplishment of the corrective
actions required by paragraph (f) of this AD, for airplanes for which a
repair has previously been accomplished, if the repair is not per the
737-400 SRM 53-00-07, Figure 201, Repair 1, or 737-500 SRM 53-00-07,
Figure 201, Repair 1, or 737-300 SRM 53-00-07, Figure 201, Repair 1, or
737-100/200 SRM 53-10-4, Figure 1, as applicable, before further
flight, repair in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(j) of this AD.''
    ATA states that UA indicates that the term ``structural repair
manual,'' as specified in paragraph (h) of the NPRM, should be replaced
with ``Service Bulletin 737-53A1261 Part III.''
    We agree that paragraph (h) of this AD should be clarified; there
are many repairs for this structure specified in the SRM that could be
installed which may not adequately address the unsafe condition.
Therefore, we have changed paragraph (h) for clarification, as follows:
``For airplanes on which a repair has been previously accomplished: If,
during accomplishment of the corrective actions required by paragraph
(f) of this AD, it is found that the repair was not done per the Boeing
737-100/200 SRM 53-10-4, Figure 1, or the Boeing 737-300/400/500 SRM
53-00-07, Figure

201, Repair 1, as applicable; before further flight, repair in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.''
    SWA requests clarification of paragraphs (h) and (i) of the NPRM.
SWA states that if an SRM repair is considered a repair option to
inspection findings per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261,
dated January 19, 2006, as indicated in paragraph (h) of the NPRM, then
paragraph (i) of the NPRM should specify that SRM repairs would be an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) and terminating action to the
inspections specified in that service bulletin.
    We do not agree that paragraph (i) of the NPRM should be changed to
specify that SRM repairs are an AMOC and terminating action to the
inspections specified in the service bulletin. The SRM is referenced in
the service bulletin as an acceptable method for accomplishing certain
repairs; therefore, it is not necessary to identify the SRM in
paragraph (i) because the service bulletin (which includes the SRM
contents) is already identified in that paragraph. We have made no
change to the AD in this regard.
    Boeing asks that we clarify paragraph (i)(1) of the NPRM to include
a reference to Appendices A through X to the service bulletin citation,
for not only the repair, but also the preventive modification. Boeing
recommends that paragraph (i)(1) be rewritten as follows:
``Accomplishment of the repair specified in Part 3, or the preventive
modification specified in Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, including Appendices A
through X inclusive, dated January 19, 2006.'' Boeing adds that
paragraph (i)(1) as currently written does not associate the appendices
to the preventive modification. Appendices A through V of the service
bulletin are directly applicable to the preventive modification.
    We agree that paragraph (i)(1) of the NPRM (paragraph (j)(1) of
this AD) should be clarified to add a reference to Appendices A through
X to the service bulletin citation. This change links the appendices to
the preventive modification, as well as the repair. We have changed
paragraph (j)(1) accordingly.
    UA asks that we clarify paragraph (i)(3) of the NPRM. UA notes that
previously installed SRM repairs do not terminate re-inspections;
although paragraph (i)(3) may lead an operator to think a previously
installed SRM repair does terminate those inspections, as they are
approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office.
    We understand UA's comment. As we explained previously, for
clarification we have added a new paragraph (i) to this AD to define
the action for airplanes on which a repair has been previously
accomplished. Paragraph (j) of this AD, if accomplished, terminates the
repetitive inspections required by paragraph (f) of this AD for the
repaired or modified frames only. We have made no change to the AD in
this regard.

Request To Clarify Certain Sections of the Preamble of the NPRM

    Boeing requests that certain sections in the preamble of the NPRM
be clarified for the following reasons:
    1. Boeing states that the first paragraph of the Discussion section
incorrectly references a Model 737-300 airplane, but the airplane found
cracked was a Model 737-200 airplane.
    2. Boeing notes that the last sentence specified in the Other
Related Service Information section specifies that the inspections are
``recommended.'' Boeing states that the inspections are ``required,''
and suggests incorporating this change to the language.
    We acknowledge the commenter's concern. However, the procedures
specified in the service information are not regulatory; the procedures
specified in service information can only be required by issuing an AD.
We agree that the model referenced in the Discussion section was
incorrect; however, the identified sections of the NPRM do not reappear
in the final rule. Therefore, we find that no change to the AD is
necessary in this regard.

Requests To Extend Compliance Times

    SWA, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM), and UA ask that we extend the
compliance times for the inspections as follows:
    SWA asks that we consider a different compliance time for airplanes
that have accomplished Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, since the
likelihood of multi-element damage does not exist for airplanes on
which that service bulletin has been accomplished at stringer 14 left
or right. SWA recommends aligning the initial grace period and repeat
intervals at the same frequency as defined in Boeing Service Bulletin
737-53-1216, section 1.E.; i.e., 9,000 flight cycles after issuance of
the AD, and repeating the inspections thereafter every 9,000 flight
cycles. SWA adds that this will align the interior access and
inspection requirements with the frame inspection requirements in both
service bulletins. SWA notes that the 9,000-flight-cycle interval would
also allow each airplane to reach a heavy maintenance opportunity for
the airplane to be in an appropriate setting for accomplishing the
required inspections and repairs if required. SWA adds that it had
several crack findings on airplanes with over 50,000 flight cycles, and
therefore it cannot consider the Boeing findings an anomaly.
    KLM states that it submitted a service request to Boeing asking
them to consider a compliance time for Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1261, which is equal to the compliance time given in AD 2006-26-
09, amendment 39-14867 (72 FR 252, January 4, 2007), and Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1216, Revision 1, dated June 8, 2006.
KLM states that both inspections can then be done simultaneously during
a C-check, without additional work. KLM adds that Boeing replied to the
service request in October 2006 stating that no change in compliance
time was anticipated. KLM notes that the impact of the inspection/
preventive modification required by AD 2006-26-09 is similar to the
inspection/preventive modification in the NPRM.
    ATA on behalf of its member UA asks that we consider extending the
repetitive inspection interval from 6,000 to 9,000 flight cycles in
order to allow airplanes to reach a heavy maintenance opportunity. To
date, UA states, it has inspected 960 frames per Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1261 with no crack findings; the airplanes inspected
ranged from 28,500 to 35,500 total flight cycles. UA suggests that the
findings on the airplanes cited in the NPRM might be an anomaly rather
than a trend if other industry findings are similar to UA's.
    We do not agree to extend the compliance times. Although we
recognize the convenience to the operator if the compliance time is
aligned with its maintenance inspections, fatigue cracking of the upper
frame to side frame splice of the fuselage is a significant safety
issue, and we have determined that the proposed compliance times are
warranted based on the effectiveness of the inspection procedure and
the rate of crack growth. In developing appropriate compliance times
for this AD, we considered those safety issues as well as the
recommendations of the manufacturer, the availability of necessary
repair parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required
inspections within an interval of time that corresponds to the normal
maintenance schedules of most affected operators. We have made no
change to the AD in this regard.

Request for Clarification of Compliance Time

    KLM states that it assumes the new start date of the inspections
will be the issue date of the AD, instead of the service bulletin issue
date.
    From this statement we infer that KLM is requesting that we clarify
the compliance time specified in paragraph (f) of the NPRM. We agree
that clarification is necessary. We have added a new paragraph (g) to
the AD to clarify the compliance time. We have re-identified subsequent
paragraphs accordingly.

Request To Change Cost Estimate

    SWA states that the costs of compliance identified in the NPRM are
underestimated. SWA states that the inspection, repair of crack
findings, and terminating action on uncracked frames is close to 1,200
labor hours at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. The cost per
airplane is closer to $96,000 than $3,040. This estimate does not
include access to the interior of the airplanes, as the airplanes were
in a heavy maintenance environment.
    We infer that the commenter is asking that we revise the cost
estimate provided in the NPRM. We do not agree. The cost information
provided in AD actions describes only the direct costs of the specific
requirements. Based on the best data available, the manufacturer
provided the number of work hours to do the required actions for this
AD. We recognize that, in doing the actions required by an AD,
operators might incur incidental costs, in addition to the direct
costs. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions, however, typically
does not include incidental costs such as the time required to gain
access and close up, time necessary for planning, or time necessitated
by other administrative actions. Those incidental costs, which might
vary significantly among operators, are almost impossible to calculate.
We have made no change to the AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that
these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 1,509 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 524 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The inspections take between 18 and 38 work hours per airplane,
depending on airplane configuration, at an average labor rate of $80
per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the
inspections required by this AD for U.S. operators is between $754,560
and $1,592,960, or $1,440 and $3,040 per airplane, per inspection
cycle.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-13-12 Boeing: Amendment 39-15575. Docket No. FAA-2007-0184;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-140-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 12,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300,
-400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, dated
January 19, 2006.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report that the upper frame of the
fuselage was severed between stringers S-13L and S-14L at station
747, and the adjacent frame at station 767 had a 1.3-inch-long crack
at the same stringer location. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct fatigue cracking of the upper frame to side frame splice of
the fuselage, which could result in reduced structural integrity of
the frame and adjacent lap joint. This reduced structural integrity
can increase loading in the fuselage skin, which will accelerate
skin crack growth and result in decompression of the airplane.

Compliance

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

Repetitive Inspections/Corrective Actions

    (f) At the applicable compliance time listed in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261,
including Appendices A through X inclusive, dated January 19, 2006;
except as provided by paragraph (g) of this AD: Do the applicable
inspections for cracking of the upper frame to side frame splice of
the fuselage by doing all of the actions, as specified in the
Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin; except as
provided by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD. Do all applicable
specified and corrective actions before further flight in accordance
with the service bulletin. Repeat the applicable inspections
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles until the
terminating action in paragraph (j) of this AD has been
accomplished.
    (g) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, including
Appendices A

through X inclusive, dated January 19, 2006, specifies a compliance
time relative to the date on the service bulletin, this AD requires
compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective
date of this AD.
    (h) If any crack is found during any inspection required by this
AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, including
Appendices A through X inclusive, dated January 19, 2006, specifies
to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight,
repair the crack in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (k) of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes on which a repair has been previously
accomplished: If, during accomplishment of the corrective actions
required by paragraph (f) of this AD, it is found that the repair
was not done per the Boeing 737-100/200 Structural Repair Manual
(SRM) 53-10-4, Figure 1, or the Boeing 737-300/400/500 SRM 53-00-07,
Figure 201, Repair 1, as applicable; before further flight, repair
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this
AD.

Optional Terminating Action

    (j) Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (j)(1),
(j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD, as applicable, terminates the
repetitive inspections required by paragraph (f) of this AD for the
repaired or modified frames only.
    (1) Accomplishment of the repair specified in Part 3, or the
preventive modification specified in Part 4, of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, including
Appendices A through X inclusive, dated January 19, 2006.
    (2) Accomplishment of the repair or the preventive modification
specified in Boeing Message M-7200-02-01294, dated August 20, 2002.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (k)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (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 an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who 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.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (l) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261,
dated January 19, 2006, to do the actions required by this AD,
unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington
98124-2207.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 12, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-14471 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 110 (Thursday, June 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30931-30932]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12202]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP21-888-000]

City of Las Cruces, New Mexico and City of Mesa, Arizona v. El
Paso Natural Gas Company, LLC; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on June 2, 2021, pursuant to Section 5 of the
Natural Gas Act \1\ and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.206 (2021), City of Las Cruces, New Mexico, and the City of Mesa,
Arizona (Complainants) filed a formal complaint against El Paso Natural
Gas Company, LLC (Respondent), alleging that Respondent's failure to
waive operational flow order penalties incurred on and after February
15, 2021 is unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, and inconsistent with
Commission policy and precedent, all as more fully explained in its
complaint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 717d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Complainants certify that copies of the complaint were served
on the contacts listed for Respondent in the Commission's list of
Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in

accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken but
will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all
interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be
served on the Complainant.
    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 may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (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. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 22, 2021.

Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-12202 Filed 6-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 72 (Monday, April 15, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15269-15271]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07373]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85564; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2019-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend
the Pilot Related to Rule 7.12E, Trading Halts Due to Extraordinary
Market Volatility

April 9, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on April 5, 2019, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot related to Rule 7.12E,
Trading Halts Due to Extraordinary Market Volatility, to the close of
business on October 18, 2019. The proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included

statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule
change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule
change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places
specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set
forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of
such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Rule 7.12E provides a methodology for determining when to halt
trading in all stocks due to extraordinary market volatility, i.e.,
market-wide circuit breakers. The market-wide circuit breaker mechanism
under Rule 7.12E was approved by the Commission to operate on a pilot
basis, the term of which was to coincide with the pilot period for the
Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of
Regulation NMS (the '' LULD Plan''),\4\ including any extensions to the
pilot period for the LULD Plan.\5\ The Commission published an
amendment to the LULD Plan for it to operate on a permanent, rather
than pilot, basis.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (the ``Limit Up-Limit Down
Release'').
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67090 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33531 (June 6, 2012) (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-73) (Approval
Order); and 68787 (January 31, 2013), 78 FR 8615 (February 6, 2013)
(SR-NYSEMKT-2013-08) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
of Proposed Rule Change Delaying the Operative Date of Rule 7.12E to
April 8, 2013).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 84843 (December 18,
2018), 83 FR 66464 (December 26, 2018) (Amendment No. 18 Proposing
Release).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.12E to untie the pilot's
effectiveness from that of the LULD Plan and to extend the pilot's
effectiveness to the close of business on October 18, 2019. The
Exchange does not propose any additional changes to Rule 7.12E.
    Market-wide circuit breakers under Rule 7.12E provide an important,
automatic mechanism that is invoked to promote stability and investor
confidence during a period of significant stress when securities
markets experience extreme broad-based declines. All U.S. equity
exchanges have rules relating to market-wide circuit breakers, which
are designed to slow the effects of extreme price movement through
coordinated trading halts across securities markets when severe price
declines reach levels that may exhaust market liquidity. Market-wide
circuit breakers provide for trading halts in all equities and options
markets during a severe market decline as measured by a single-day
decline in the S&P 500 Index.
    Pursuant to Rule 7.12E, a market-wide trading halt will be
triggered if the S&P 500 Index declines in price by specified
percentages from the prior day's closing price of that index.
Currently, the triggers are set at three circuit breaker thresholds: 7%
(Level 1), 13% (Level 2) and 20% (Level 3). A market decline that
triggers a Level 1 or Level 2 circuit breaker after 9:30 a.m. ET and
before 3:25 p.m. ET would halt market-wide trading for 15 minutes,
while a similar market decline at or after 3:25 p.m. ET would not halt
market-wide trading. A market decline that triggers a Level 3 circuit
breaker, at any time during the trading day, would halt market-wide
trading for the remainder of the trading day.
    The Exchange intends to file a separate proposed rule change with
the Commission to operate Rule 7.12E on a permanent, rather than pilot,
basis. Extending the effectiveness of Rule 7.12E to the close of
business on October 18, 2019 should provide the Commission adequate
time to consider whether to approve the Exchange's separate proposal to
operate the market-wide circuit breaker mechanism under Rule 7.12E on a
permanent basis.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Sections 6(b) \7\ and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in
particular, because it would promote just and equitable principles of
trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and
open market and a national market system. The Exchange also believes
that the proposed rule change promotes just and equitable principles of
trade in that it promotes transparency and uniformity across markets
concerning when and how to halt trading in all stocks as a result of
extraordinary market volatility. Extending the market-wide circuit
breaker pilot under Rule 7.12E an additional six months would ensure
the continued, uninterrupted operation of a consistent mechanism to
halt trading across the U.S. markets while the Commission considers
whether to approve the pilot on a permanent basis. The proposed rule
change would thus promote fair and orderly markets and the protection
of investors and the public interest. Based on the foregoing, the
Exchange believes the benefits to market participants from the market-
wide circuit breaker mechanism under Rule 7.12E should continue on a
pilot basis while the Commission considers whether to permanently
approve Rule 7.12E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change
implicates any competitive issues because the proposal would ensure the
continued, uninterrupted operation of a consistent mechanism to halt
trading across the U.S. markets while the Commission considers whether
to permanently approve the market-wide circuit breaker mechanism under
Rule 7.12E. Further, the Exchange understands that FINRA and other
national securities exchanges will file similar proposals to extend
their rules regarding the market-wide circuit breaker pilot so that the
market-wide circuit breaker mechanism may continue uninterrupted while
the Commission considers whether to approve its operation on a
permanent basis.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\12\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative upon filing. Extending the pilot for an

additional six months will allow the uninterrupted operation of the
existing pilot to halt trading across the U.S. markets while the
Commission considers whether to approve the pilot on a permanent basis.
The extension simply maintains the status quo. Therefore, the
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Commission hereby designates the proposed rule change to be
operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(g)(iii).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2019-14 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2019-14. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2019-14, and should be
submitted on or before May 6, 2019.

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

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-07373 Filed 4-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 53 (Monday, March 22, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15162-15165]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05692]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 174 and 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0053; FRL-10021-44]

Receipt of Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals in or on Various Commodities March 2021

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notices of filing of petitions and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of initial
filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 21, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the pesticide petition (PP) of interest as shown in the
body of this document, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Registration
Division (7505P), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Charles Smith, Biopesticides and Pollution
Prevention Division (7511P), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The mailing address for each
contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's
name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the
end of each pesticide petition summary.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is announcing receipt of pesticide petitions filed under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 174 or part 180 for residues of pesticide
chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking
public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners.
EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has
determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document
contain data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency
of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports
granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public
comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be
warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final
determination on these pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), summaries of the petitions that are
the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioners, are included
in dockets EPA has created for these rulemakings. The dockets for these
petitions are available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA
is publishing notice of the petitions so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on these requests for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petitions may be obtained
through the petition summaries referenced in this unit.

A. Notice of Filing--Amended Tolerance Exemptions for Inerts (Except
PIPS) Amended

    1. PP IN-11422. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0161). Sasol Chemicals (USA) LLC,
12120 Wickchester Ln., Houston, Texas 77224, requests to amend the
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for ``[alpha]-alkyl-
[omega]-hydroxypoly (oxypropylene) and/or poly (oxyethylene) polymers
where the alkyl chain contains a minimum of six carbons'' under 40 CFR
180.910, 180.930, 180.940 and 180.960 to add Alcohols, C20-30,
ethoxylated (CAS Reg. No. 68439-48-5); Alcohols, C16-18, distn.
residues, ethoxylated, propoxylated (CAS Reg. No. 2409830-33-5);
Alcohol, C22, ethoxylated (CAS Reg. No. 26636-40-8); Poly(oxy-1,2-
ethanediyl), [alpha]-(2-butyloctyl)-[omega]-hydroxy- (CAS Reg. No.
60636-37-5); 2-octyldodecan-1-ol, ethoxylated (CAS Reg. No. 32128-65-
7); and Alcohols, C16-20, branched, ethoxylated (CAS Reg. No. 161133-
70-6). The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because
it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. Contact: RD.
    2. PP IN-11435. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0164). Technology Sciences Group
Inc., 1150 18th Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036 on behalf
of Mason Chemical Company, (9075 Centre Point Dr., Suite 400, West
Chester, OH 45069) requests to amend an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of C10-C18-alkyl dimethyl amine oxides
(including 1-Dodecanamine, N,Ndimethyl-, N-oxide (CAS Reg. No. 1643-20-
5); N,N-Dimethyl-1-octadecanamine-N-oxide (CAS Reg. No. 2571-88-2); 1-
Decanamine, N,N-dimethyl-, N-oxide (CAS Reg. No. 2605-79-0); 1-
Tetradecanamine, N,N-dimethyl-, N-oxide (CAS Reg. No. 3332-27-2);
Amines, coco alkyl dimethyl, oxides (CAS Reg. No. 61788-90-7); Amines,
C12-18-alkyldimethyl, N-oxides (CAS Reg. No. 68955-55-5); (C10-C16-
Alkyl)dimethylamines, N-oxides (CAS Reg. No.70592-80-2); 1-
Hexadecanamine, N,N-dimethyl-, N-oxide (CAS Reg. No. 7128-91-8);
Amines, C10-18-alkyldimethyl, N-oxides (CAS Reg. No. 85408-48-6);
Amines, C12-16-alkyldimethyl, N-oxides (CAS Reg. No. 85408-49-7)) to
include the use as inert ingredients used as surfactants and foaming
agents in antimicrobial formulations applied to food-contact surfaces
in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-
processing equipment and utensils under 40 CFR 180.940(a). The
petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not
required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact:
RD.
    3. PP IN-11504. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0173). CJB Applied Technologies,
LLC, 1105 Innovation Way, Valdosta, GA 31603, requests to amend an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of benzyl
alcohol (CAS Reg. No. 100-51-6) when used as a pesticide inert
ingredient (adjuvant) in pesticide formulations under 40 CFR 180.910
with a limit of 60% in formulation. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.
    4. PP IN-11526. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0172). International Specialty
Products, an Ashland Inc. Company (Ashland), 1005 US 202/206,
Bridgewater, NJ 08807, requests to amend an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone
(CAS Reg. No. 2687-94-7) when used as a pesticide inert ingredient
(solvent) in pesticide formulations under 40 CFR 180.1130 in
formulations containing prothioconazole at a concentration not to
exceed 15%. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed
because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. Contact: RD.

B. Amended Tolerance Exemptions for PIPS

    1. PP 1G8896. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0170). Southern Gardens Citrus
Nursery, LLC, 1820 County Rd. 833, Clewiston, FL 33440, request amend a
temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR
174.535 for residues of the plant-incorporated protectant (PIP) spinach
defensin proteins in or on citrus by renewing and extending it. The
petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because an exemption
from the requirement is being sought. Contact: BPPD.

C. New Tolerance Exemptions for Inerts (Except PIPS)

    1. PP IN-11408. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0160). S.A. Ajinomoto Omnichem
N.V., Cooppallaan, 91 B-9230, Wetteren, Belgium, requests to establish
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues Styrene-
maleic anhydride ethyl amine salt copolymer, with a minimum number
average molecular weight of 2,894 daltons, when used as an inert
ingredient in pesticide formulations under 40 CFR 180.960. The
petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not
required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact:
RD.
    2. PP IN-11424. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0197). Exponent, Inc., 1150
Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20036 on behalf of
Croda Inc., (300-A Columbus Circle, Edison, NJ 08837, EPA Company
Number 94085) requests to establish an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for a cluster of Low Risk Polymers, Alkoxylated C8-C18
Saturated and Unsaturated Alcohol and Adipic Acid (AASUAA), (CAS Reg.
No. 397247-05-1, 227755-70-6, 397247-06-2, 1065234-83-4, and 497157-72-
9) with a minimum number average molecular weight (in amu) of 1,100
when used as a pesticide inert ingredient (surfactant or adjuvant) in
pesticide formulations under 40 CFR 180.960. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.
    3. PP IN-11434. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0192). The Dow Chemical Company,
715 E Main Street, Midland, MI 48674, requests to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-
Propenoic acid, telomer with N-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-propenamide,
sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1)
and sodium sulfite (1:1), sodium salt, (CAS Reg. No. 115035-53-5) with
a minimum number average molecular weight (in amu) of 6,200 Daltons
when used as a pesticide inert ingredient (dispersant) in pesticide
formulations under 40 CFR 180.960. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.
    4. PP IN-11438. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0198). Spring Regulatory Sciences,
6620 Cypresswood Dr., Suite 250, Spring, TX 77379 on behalf of FB
Sciences, Inc. 153 N Main St., Ste 100, Collierville, TN 38017,
requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
in 40 CFR part 180. for residues of Complex Polymeric Polyhydroxy Acids
(CPPA) (CAS Reg. No. 145006-56-0.) when used as a pesticide inert
ingredient (adjuvant and surfactant) in pesticide formulations under 40
CFR 180.910 and 180.930. The petitioner believes no analytical method
is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.
    5. PP IN-11450. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0190). Spring Regulatory Sciences,
6620 Cypresswood Dr., Suite 250, Spring, TX 77379 on behalf of Sasol
Chemicals (USA) LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, requests to
establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues
of paraffin waxes and hydrocarbon waxes (CAS Reg. No. 8002-74-2),
oxidized paraffin waxes and hydrocarbon waxes (CAS Reg. No. 68153-22-0)
and oxidized paraffin waxes and hydrocarbon, lithium salts (CAS Reg.
No. 68649-48-9) when used as a pesticide inert ingredient (flow aid,
surface protectant, binder, carrier, coating agent or adjuvant) in
pesticide formulations under 40 CFR 180.910, 180.930, and 180.940(a).
The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is
not required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.
Contact: RD.
    6. PP IN-11460. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0184). Celanese Ltd, 222 W Las
Colinas Blvd., Suite 900N, Irving, TX 75039 requests to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-
Propenoic acid, polymer with ethene, ethenyl acetate and sodium
ethenesulfonate (AA E SVS VA) (CAS Reg. No. 429691-44-1) with a minimum
number average molecular weight (in amu) of 5,500 when used as a
pesticide inert ingredient in pesticide formulations under 40 CFR
180.960. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because
it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. Contact: RD.
    7. PP IN-11470. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0183). Croda, Inc., 300-A Columbus
Circle, Edison, NJ 08837 requests to establish an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of poly (oxy-1,2-
ethanediyl),[alpha]-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propenyl)- [omega]-methoxy- (CAS
Reg. No. 26915-72-0) with a minimum number average molecular weight (in
amu) of 1,200 when used as a pesticide inert ingredient in pesticide
formulations under 40 CFR 180.960. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.
    8. PP IN-11484. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0138). Exponent, Inc., 1150
Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20036 on behalf of DDP
Specialty Electronic Materials US, Inc., (400 Arcola Road,
Collegeville, PA 19426) requests to establish an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of cellulose, ethyl ether (CAS
RN 9004-57-3) with a minimum number average molecular weight (in amu)
of 13,000 Daltons when used as a pesticide inert ingredient in
pesticide formulations under 40 CFR 180.960. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.
    9. PP IN-11496. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0155). Ag-Chem Consulting LLC,
12644 Chapel Rd., Clifton, VA 20124 on behalf of Corbet Scientific LLC,
(Route 100, Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510) requests to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of C10-23
alkyl group-containing alkali-soluble acrylic emulsion polymer (CAS No.
174127-24-3) with a minimum number average molecular weight (in amu) of
29,000 Daltons when used as a pesticide inert ingredient in pesticide
formulations under 40 CFR 180.960. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.
    10. PP IN-11513. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0194). Spring Regulatory
Sciences, 6620 Cypresswood Dr., Suite 250, Spring, TX 77379 on behalf
of Nouryon Chemicals LLC, requests to amend the exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for [alpha]-Alkyl-[omega]-hydroxypoly
(oxypropylene) and/or poly (oxyethylene) polymers where the alkyl chain
contains a minimum of six carbons under 40 CFR 180.910, 180.930,

180.940(a) and 180.960 to add Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane,
mono-C9-11-isoalkyl ethers, C10-rich, phosphates, potassium salts (CAS
Reg. No. 2275654-37-8). The petitioner believes no analytical method is
needed because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance. Contact: RD.

D. New Tolerance Exemptions for Non-Inerts (Except PIPS)

    1. PP 1F8895. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0157). Biotalys NV, Technologiepark
94, 9052 Ghent, Belgium (c/o SciReg, Inc., 12733 Director's Loop,
Woodbridge, VA 22192), requests to establish an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the
fungicide ASFBIOF01-02 in or on all food commodities when used for
preharvest and postharvest disease control in accordance with good
agricultural practices. The petitioner believes no analytical method is
needed because the requirement is not applicable. Contact: BPPD.
    2. PP 0F8823. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0481). NewLeaf Symbiotics, 1005
North Warson Rd., Ste. 102, St. Louis, MO 63132, requests to establish
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the fungicide Methylorubrum populi strain NLS0089 in or on
food commodities. The petitioner believes no analytical method is
needed because it is expected that, when used as proposed,
Methylorubrum populi strain NLS0089 would not result in residues that
are of toxicological concern. Contact: BPPD.
    3. PP 0F8844. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0736). Chr. Hansens Laboratory Inc.,
9015 W Maple St., Milwaukee, WI 53214, requests to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the fungicide and nematicide Bacillus subtilis strain
CH3000 in or on all food commodities. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because it is not applicable. Contact:
BPPD.
    4. PP 0F8843. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0737). Chr. Hansens Laboratory Inc.,
9015 W Maple St., Milwaukee, WI 53214, requests to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the fungicide and nematicide Bacillus paralicheniformis
strain CH2970 in or on all food commodities. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because it is not applicable. Contact:
BPPD.

E. New Tolerances for Non-Inerts

    1. PP 0E8871. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0045). The Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W,
Princeton, NJ 08450, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.622
for residues of the fungicide ethaboxam, (N-(cyano-2-thienylmethyl)-4-
ethyl-2-(ethylamino)-5-thiazolecarboxamide) in or on Brassica, leafy
greens, subgroup 4-16B at 7 parts per million (ppm) and Vegetable,
Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 3 ppm. The ``Independent
Laboratory Validation of Method RM-49C, Determination of Ethaboxam in
Crops'' is used to measure and evaluate the chemical Contact: RD.
    2. PP 9F8817. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0066). Syngenta Crop Protection,
LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, requests to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the insecticide emamectin
benzoate, 4'-epi-methylamino-4'-deoxyavermectin B1 benzoate (a mixture
of a minimum of 90% 4'-epi-methylamino-4'-deoxyavermectin B1a and a
maximum of 10% 4'-epi-methlyamino-4'deoxyavermectin B1b benzoate), and
its metabolites 8,9 isomer of the B1a and B1b component of the parent
insecticide in or on the raw agricultural commodity soybeans at 0.01
parts per million (ppm). The HPLC-fluorescence method is used to
measure and evaluate the chemical emamectin benzoate. Contact: RD.

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: March 10, 2021.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Program Support.
[FR Doc. 2021-05692 Filed 3-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 60732]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19048]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC)
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the ARAC.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, September 21, 2023, from
1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
    Requests to attend the meeting must be received by Tuesday,
September 12, 2023.
    Requests for accommodations to a disability must be received by
Tuesday, September 12, 2023.
    Requests to submit written materials to be reviewed during the
meeting must be received no later than Tuesday, September 12, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, and
virtually on Zoom. However, if the FAA is unable to hold the meeting in
person due to circumstances outside of its control, the FAA will hold a
virtual meeting and notify registrants with the meeting details and
post any updates on the FAA Committee website. Members of the public
who wish to observe the meeting must RSVP by emailing [email protected]. General committee information including copies of the
meeting minutes will be available on the FAA Committee website at
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lakisha Pearson, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]. Any committee-
related request should be sent to the person listed in this section.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The ARAC was created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), in accordance with Title 5 of the United States Code (5 U.S.C.
App. 2) to provide advice and recommendations to the FAA concerning
rulemaking activities, such as aircraft operations, airman and air
agency certification, airworthiness standards and certification,
airports, maintenance, noise, and training.

II. Agenda

    At the meeting, the agenda will cover the following topics:
     Status Updates:
[cir] Active Working Groups
[cir] Transport Airplane and Engine (TAE) Subcommittee
 Recommendation Reports
 Status Report from the FAA
 Any Other Business
    Detailed agenda information will be posted on the FAA Committee
website address listed in the ADDRESSES section at least one week in
advance of the meeting.

III. Public Participation

    The meeting will be open to the public for virtual or in person
attendance on a first-come, first served basis, as space is limited.
Please confirm your attendance with the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section and provide the following
information: full legal name, country of citizenship, and name of your
industry association or applicable affiliation. Please indicate if you
plan to observe the meeting in-person or virtually. When registration
is confirmed, FAA will email registrants to provide meeting access
information in a timely manner prior to the meeting.
    The U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to providing
equal access to this meeting for all participants. If you need
alternative formats or services because of a disability, such as sign
language, interpretation, or other ancillary aids, please contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    The FAA is not accepting oral presentations at this meeting due to
time constraints. Any member of the public may present a written
statement to the committee at any time. The public may present written
statements to ARAC by providing a copy to the Designated Federal
Officer via the email listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 29, 2023.
Brandon Roberts,
Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2023-19048 Filed 9-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P