[Federal Register: October 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 209)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 66700-66702]
[DOCID:fr29oc10-23]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1084; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-056-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) Model
402C Airplanes Modified by Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA927NW
and Model 414A Airplanes Modified by STC SA892NW

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD would require a complete
inspection of the flap system and modification of the flap control
system. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a Cessna Model
414A airplane modified by STC SA892NW that experienced an asymmetrical
flap condition causing an un-commanded roll when the pilot set the
flaps to the approach position. We are proposing this AD to prevent
failure of the flap system, which could result in an asymmetrical flap
condition. This condition could result in loss of control.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 13,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 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
Sierra Industries, Ltd., 122 Howard Langford Drive, Uvalde, Texas
78801; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet:
http://www.sijet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<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: Werner Koch, Aerospace Engineer, Fort
Worth Airplane Certification Office, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, Texas 76137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-1084;
Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-056-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received a report of a Cessna Model 414 airplane, modified by
Sierra Industries, Ltd., STC SA892NW (formerly held by Robertson
Aircraft Corporation) that experienced an asymmetrical flap condition
causing an un-commanded roll when the pilot set the flaps to the
approach position. The flap preselect cable connects to the arm
assembly and provides the flap position to the flap selector to close
the position loop for the flap position. Micro switches are located on
the arm assembly and provide the electrical signal for the arm
position.
    STC SA927NW and STC SA892NW use the original production preselect
cable. However, the STCs added an extension to the arm assembly that

requires increased travel of the preselect cable to obtain the same
rotation as previously obtained with the shorter arm assembly. To
obtain the same arm assembly rotation, the preselect cable must travel
approximately an additional .75 inch. However, the original cable has
internal mechanical stops that prevent it from traveling the additional
distance. The cable's internal stops are contacted by a smaller
rotation displacement of the arm assembly. Since more linear
displacement of the cable is required to obtain the same switch action,
the internal mechanical stops of the cable are reached before the
switches designed to stop the motion of the flaps activate.
    As a result, when the internal stops in the cable are contacted,
the rotation of the arm assembly carrying the micro switches stops and
the switch to stop the drive motor is not activated. Because the switch
is not activated, the motor continues to run until either the motor
drive shear pin fails, a cable breaks, the structural bracket breaks,
or the secondary switches stop the motor before something breaks. The
sequence was verified on the reported airplane by the rigging,
installation, and operation of an STC production configuration.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in an asymmetrical
flap condition. This failure could lead to loss of control.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Sierra Industries, Ltd. Service Bulletin SI09-82
Series-1, Rev. IR, dated September 8, 2010. The service information
describes procedures for inspecting the flap system, installing a new
preselect cable with increased internal stroke, making additional
component modifications, and installing and rigging the flap control
system.

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 require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 150 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on
                Action                            Labor cost             Parts cost     Cost per        U.S.
                                                                                product      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspect the flap system and modify/     20 work-hours x $85 per hour =       $1,000        $2,700      $405,000
 replace the flap preselect control      $1,700.
 cable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Cessna Aircraft Company: Docket No. FAA-2010-1084; Directorate
Identifier 2010-CE-056-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by December 13, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) Model
402C airplanes modified by Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
SA927NW and Model 414A airplanes modified by STC SA892NW, all serial
numbers, that are certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport
Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD was prompted by a report of a Cessna Model 414A
airplane modified by STC SA892NW that experienced an asymmetrical
flap condition causing an un-commanded roll when the pilot set the
flaps to the approach position. We are issuing this AD to prevent
failure of the flap system, which could result in an asymmetrical
flap condition. This condition could result in loss of control.

Compliance

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

Required Actions

    (g) Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, do a
complete inspection of the flap system following the Inspection
Instructions section of Sierra Industries, Ltd. Service Bulletin
SI09-82 Series-1, Rev. IR, dated September 8, 2010.
    (h) Before further flight after the inspection required in
paragraph (g) of this AD where any damage to the flap bellcrank or
bellcrank mounting structure is found, repair the damage and modify
the flap control system following the Accomplishment Instructions of
Sierra Industries, Ltd. Service Bulletin SI09-82 Series-1, Rev. IR,
dated September 8, 2010.
    (i) Within 180 days after the effective date of this AD where
damage to the flap bellcrank or bellcrank mounting structure is not
found during the inspection required in paragraph (g) of the AD,
modify the flap control system following the Accomplishment
Instructions of Sierra Industries, Ltd. Service Bulletin SI09-82
Series-1, Rev. IR, dated September 8, 2010.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (j)(1) The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office,
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.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your Principal
Maintenance Inspector or Principal Avionics Inspector, as
appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight
Standards District Office.

Related Information

    (k) For more information about this AD, contact Werner Koch,
Aerospace Engineer, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (l) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Sierra Industries, Ltd., 122 Howard Langford Drive, Uvalde, Texas
78801; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet:
http://www.sijet.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901
Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 25, 2010.
John Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-27460 Filed 10-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 154 (Friday, August 11, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54500-54503]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16871]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 154 / Friday, August 11, 2023 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1705; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00480-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2020-02-13, which applies to certain Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET
FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes. AD 2020-02-
13 requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations. Since the FAA issued AD 2020-02-13, the FAA has determined
that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary.
This proposed AD would continue to require certain actions in AD 2020-
02-13 and would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive
airworthiness limitations, as specified in a European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by
reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by September
25, 2023.

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 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.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1705; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For EASA material that is proposed for IBR in this NPRM,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You
may find this material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu. It is
also available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1705.
     For Dassault service information identified in this NPRM,
contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box
2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; website
dassaultfalcon.com.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1705; Project Identifier
MCAI-2023-00480-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Tom
Rodriguez, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2020-02-13, Amendment 39-19827 (85 FR 6744,
February 6, 2020) (AD 2020-02-13), for certain Dassault Aviation Model
FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes. AD
2020-02-13 was prompted by an MCAI originated by EASA, which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA
issued AD 2019-0142, dated June 17, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0142) (which

corresponds to FAA AD 2020-02-13), to correct an unsafe condition.
    AD 2020-02-13 requires revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new maintenance
requirements and airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2020-02-
13 to address, among other things, fatigue cracking and damage in
principal structural elements; such fatigue cracking and damage could
result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2020-02-13 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2020-02-13, EASA superseded AD 2019-0142
and issued EASA AD 2023-0059, dated March 16, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0059)
(referred to after this as the MCAI), for certain Dassault Aviation
Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G
airplanes. The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations have been developed.
    The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1705.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2023-0059. This service information
specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for
airplane structures and safe life limits.
    This proposed AD would also require Chapter 5-40-01, Airworthiness
Limitations, Revision 10, effective January 1, 2019, of the Dassault
Aviation Falcon 20 Maintenance Manual, which the Director of the
Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of March
12, 2020 (85 FR 6744, February 6, 2020).
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in ADDRESSES.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2020-02-
13. This proposed AD would also require revising the existing
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate
additional new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, which
would terminate the retained requirements. These actions are specified
in EASA AD 2023-0059 already described, as proposed for incorporation
by reference. Any differences with EASA AD 2023-0059 are identified as
exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections).
Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in
the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) according to
paragraph (l)(1) of this proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2023-0059 by reference in the FAA
final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with
EASA AD 2023-0059 through that incorporation, except for any
differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this
proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a
particular section in EASA AD 2023-0059 does not mean that operators
need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD
requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''
compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD 2023-
0059. Service information required by EASA AD 2023-0059 for compliance
will be available at regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2023-1705 after the FAA final rule is published.

Airworthiness Limitation ADs Using the New Process

    The FAA's process of incorporating by reference MCAI ADs as the
primary source of information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs
has been limited to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service
bulletins as the primary source of information for accomplishing the
actions required by the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the
process to include MCAI ADs that require a change to airworthiness
limitation documents, such as airworthiness limitation sections.
    For these ADs that incorporate by reference an MCAI AD that changes
airworthiness limitations, the FAA requirements are unchanged.
Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new
airworthiness limitation document. The airworthiness limitations must
be followed according to 14 CFR 91.403(c) and 91.409(e).
    The previous format of the airworthiness limitation ADs included a
paragraph that specified that no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions and intervals
are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in
the AMOCs paragraph under ``Additional AD Provisions.'' This new format
includes a ``New Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals''
paragraph that does not specifically refer to AMOCs, but operators may
still request an AMOC to use an alternative action or interval.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 61 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:
    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained
actions from AD 2020-02-13 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-
hour).
    The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator,
although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator
to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection
program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined
that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane
estimate.

    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new proposed
actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2020-02-13, Amendment 39-19827
(85 FR 6744, February 6, 2020); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2023-1705; Project Identifier
MCAI-2023-00480-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by September 25, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2020-02-13, Amendment 39-19827 (85 FR 6744,
February 6, 2020) (AD 2020-02-13).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN
JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes, certificated in any
category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD 2023-0059, dated March 16, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0059).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address, among other things, fatigue cracking and
damage in principal structural elements. The unsafe condition, if
not addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Revision of the Existing Maintenance or Inspection
Program, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2020-02-13, with no changes. Within 90 days after March 12, 2020
(the effective date of AD 2020-02-13), revise the existing
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
information specified in Chapter 5-40-01, Airworthiness Limitations,
Revision 10, dated January 1, 2019, of the Dassault Aviation Falcon
20 Maintenance Manual. The initial compliance time for doing the
tasks is at the time specified in Chapter 5-40-01, Airworthiness
Limitations, Revision 10, dated January 1, 2019, of the Dassault
Aviation Falcon 20 Maintenance Manual, or within 90 days after March
12, 2020 (the effective date of AD 2020-02-13), whichever occurs
later. Where the threshold column in the table in paragraph B,
Mandatory Maintenance Operations, of Chapter 5-40-01, Airworthiness
Limitations, Revision 10, dated January 1, 2019, of the Dassault
Aviation Falcon 20 Maintenance Manual specifies a compliance time in
years, those compliance times start from the date of issuance of the
original airworthiness certificate or date of issuance of the
original export certificate of airworthiness.

(h) Retained Restrictions on Alternative Actions and Intervals With No
Change

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD
2020-02-13, with no changes. Except as required by paragraph (i) of
this AD, after the existing maintenance or inspection program has
been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the
actions or intervals are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

(i) New Revision of the Existing Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Except as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2023-0059. Accomplishing the revision of
the existing maintenance or inspection program required by this
paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

(j) Exceptions to EASA AD 2023-0059

    (1) This AD does not adopt the requirements specified in
paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA AD 2023-0059.
    (2) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2023-0059 specifies revising ``the
approved AMP'' within 12 months after its effective date, but this
AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
    (3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in
paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2023-0059 is at the applicable
``limitations'' and ``associated thresholds'' as incorporated by the
requirements of paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2023-0059, or within 90
days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (4) This AD does not adopt the provisions specified in
paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA AD 2023-0059.
    (5) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2023-0059.

(k) New Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections) and intervals are allowed unless they
are approved as specified in the provisions of the ``Ref.
Publications'' section of EASA AD 2023-0059.

(l) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, 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 responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If
sending information directly to the International Validation Branch,
send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)
of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(m) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0059,
dated March 16, 2023.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
March 12, 2020 (85 FR 6744, February 6, 2020).
    (i) Chapter 5-40-01, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 10,
effective January 1, 2019, of the Dassault Aviation Falcon 20
Maintenance Manual.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (4) For EASA AD 2023-0059, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (5) For Dassault service information identified in this AD,
contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box
2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; website
dassaultfalcon.com.
    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on August 1, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-16871 Filed 8-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 56 (Monday, March 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16085-16088]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06301]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71730; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Price List
To Specify Pricing Applicable To Executions of Mid-Point Passive
Liquidity Orders Against Retail Orders Within the Retail Liquidity
Program

March 18, 2014.
    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 March 4, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE MKT'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III 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 amend its Price List to specify pricing
applicable to executions of Mid-Point Passive Liquidity (``MPL'')
Orders against Retail Orders within the Retail Liquidity Program. The
Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective March 4, 2014.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to specify pricing
applicable to executions of MPL Orders against Retail Orders within the
Retail Liquidity Program. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee
change effective March 4, 2014.
    The Exchange recently introduced a new order type called an MPL
Order, which is an undisplayed limit order that automatically executes
at the mid-point of the protected best bid or offer (``PBBO'').\4\ The
Exchange also amended NYSE MKT Rule 107C--Equities to specify that MPL
Orders could interact with incoming, contra-side Retail Orders
submitted by a Retail Member Organization (``RMO'') in the Retail
Liquidity Program.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71329 (January 16,
2014), 79 FR 3904 (January 23, 2014) (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-84). See also
NYSE MKT Rule 13--Equities.
    \5\ See NYSE MKT Rule 107C--Equities. Retail Order is defined in
NYSE MKT Rule 107C(a)(3)--Equities as an agency order or a riskless
principal order that meets the criteria of Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') Rule 5320.03 that originates
from a natural person and is submitted to the Exchange by an RMO,
provided that no change is made to the terms of the order with
respect to price or side of market and the order does not originate
from a trading algorithm or any other computerized methodology. RMO
is defined in NYSE MKT Rule 107C(a)(2)--Equities as a member
organization (or a division thereof) that has been approved by the
Exchange to submit Retail Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that the pricing for a Retail Order that
executes against an MPL Order would be the same as the current pricing
for a Retail Order that executes against a Retail Price Improvement
Order (``RPI'') submitted by a Retail Liquidity Provider (``RLP'') or
non-RLP.\6\ Specifically, the Retail Order would receive a credit of
$0.0005 per share. The Exchange also proposes that the contra-side MPL
Order would be billed according to the standard pricing that would
otherwise apply to the MPL Order (e.g., a credit of $0.0016 per share
for Exchange-listed securities or $0.0025 per share for UTP securities,
not the pricing under the Retail Liquidity Program section of the Price
List).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ RPI is defined in NYSE MKT Rule 107C(a)(4)--Equities and
consists of non-displayed interest in Exchange-traded securities
(including, but not limited to, Exchange-listed securities and
securities listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market traded pursuant to
unlisted trading privileges (``UTP'')) that is priced better than
the best protected bid (``PBB'') or best protected offer (``PBO''),
as such terms are defined in Regulation NMS Rule 600(b)(57), by at
least $0.001 and that is identified as such. RLP is defined in NYSE
MKT Rule 107C(a)(1)--Equities as a member organization that is
approved by the Exchange to act as such and that is required to
submit RPIs in accordance with NYSE MKT Rule 107C--Equities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that member
organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that a $0.0005 per share credit for a Retail
Order that executes against an MPL Order is reasonable because it is
the same rate that currently applies to a Retail Order that executes
against an RPI. In this regard, both MPL Orders and RPIs offer the
potential for price improvement for a Retail Order. This is further
reasonable because it would create an added financial incentive for
RMOs to bring additional retail order flow to a public market, which
could result in additional price improvement for retail investors.
    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable for an MPL Order
that executes against a Retail Order to be billed according to standard
pricing that would otherwise apply to the MPL Order (e.g., a credit of
$0.0016 per share for Exchange-listed securities or $0.0025 per share
for UTP securities, not the pricing under the Retail Liquidity Program
section of the Price List). Specifically, an MPL Order would be
eligible to execute against Retail Orders, but without being so
designated by the submitting member or member organization.
Accordingly, the standard MPL Order rate (e.g., a credit of $0.0016 per
share for Exchange-listed securities or $0.0025 per share for UTP
securities) would otherwise apply to the MPL Order absent its
interaction with the Retail Order.
    The pricing proposed herein is equitable and, like the Retail
Liquidity Program itself, is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination, but instead to promote a competitive process around
retail executions such that retail investors would receive better
prices than they currently do through bilateral internalization
arrangements.
    The proposed pricing could result in an RPI receiving a rate (i.e.,
no charge or a fee of $0.0003 per share) that is inferior to the rate
received by an MPL Order (e.g., a credit of $0.0016 per share for
Exchange-listed securities or $0.0025 per share for UTP securities),
even when both execute against a Retail Order. The Exchange believes
that this is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because RPIs
would only execute against Retail Orders, whereas MPL Orders could
execute against Retail Orders or other marketable interest on the
Exchange, including non-retail liquidity.\9\ In this

regard, and as previously recognized by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), ``markets generally distinguish between
individual retail investors, whose orders are considered desirable by
liquidity providers because such retail investors are presumed on
average to be less informed about short-term price movements, and
professional traders, whose orders are presumed on average to be more
informed.'' \10\ The Exchange has sought to balance this view in
setting the pricing of RPIs compared to MPL Orders, recognizing that
the ability to limit interaction only to Retail Orders could be a
potential benefit applicable only to RPIs. This is also equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because the use of RPIs by RLPs and non-
RLPs is voluntary. Members and member organizations that perceive that
the potential advantages of interacting with Retail Orders outweigh the
potential costs (i.e., providing price improvement and potential
inferior pricing as compared to MPL Orders) may choose to utilize RPIs,
but those that do not are free to forgo their use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This is also similar to the manner in which the NASDAQ Stock
Market, LLC (``NASDAQ'') applies pricing for its ``Retail Price
Improvement Program.'' See NASDAQ Rule 7018(g).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67347 (July 3,
2012), 77 FR 40673, 40679-80 (July 10, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2011-55; SR-
NYSEAmex-2011-84). See also Concept Release on Equity Market
Structure, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (January 14,
2010), 75 FR 3594 (January 21, 2010) (``Concept Release'') (noting
that dark pools and internalizing broker-dealers executed
approximately 25.4% of share volume in September 2009). See also
Mary L. Schapiro, Strengthening Our Equity Market Structure (Speech
at the Economic Club of New York, Sept. 7, 2010) (available on the
Commission's Web site). In her speech, Chairman Schapiro noted that
nearly 30 percent of volume in U.S.-listed equities was executed in
venues that do not display their liquidity or make it generally
available to the public and the percentage was increasing nearly
every month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\11\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change would increase competition among execution venues, encourage
additional liquidity, and offer the potential for price improvement to
retail investors. In this regard, the Exchange believes that the
transparency and competitiveness of operating a program such as the
Retail Liquidity Program on an exchange market, and the pricing related
thereto, would encourage competition and result in better prices for
retail investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and
with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from
compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in
response, and because market participants may readily adjust their
order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which
fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is
extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the
ability of member organizations or competing order execution venues to
maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \12\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \13\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \14\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-19 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-NYSEMKT-2014-19. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be
available for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and
on its Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be
posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions

should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-19 and should be submitted
on or before April 14, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-06301 Filed 3-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 23, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15421-15423]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05761]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0815; FRL 10018-97-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU39

Test Methods and Performance Specifications for Air Emission
Sources; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Correcting amendments.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is correcting a
final rule that was published in the Federal Register on October 7,
2020, and was effective on December 7, 2020. The final rule corrected
and updated regulations for source testing of emissions. This
correction does not change any final action taken by the EPA on October
7, 2020; this action corrects the amendatory instructions for Methods 4
and 5.

DATES: The correction is effective on March 23, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0815. All documents in the docket are
listed at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Lula H. Melton, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division (E143-
02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rulemaking published in the
Federal Register on October 7, 2020 (85 FR 63394), there were some
inadvertent errors made to Methods 4 and 5 due to unclear or incorrect
amendatory instruction. In this correction document, we are clarifying
and correcting the amendatory instructions for ``Appendix A-3 to part
60'' to correct the inadvertent errors and incorporate the revisions
from the final rulemaking.
    In Method 4, we are revising sections <IP_ADDRESS>, <IP_ADDRESS>, and adding
sections <IP_ADDRESS>.1, <IP_ADDRESS>.2, <IP_ADDRESS>.3, <IP_ADDRESS>.4, <IP_ADDRESS>, and
<IP_ADDRESS>. We are also revising section 12.1.3.
    In Method 5, we are revising sections 12.3, 12.11.1, 12.11.2,
<IP_ADDRESS>, and <IP_ADDRESS>.

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Performance specifications, Test methods and procedures.

Joseph Goffman,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.

    Accordingly, 40 CFR part 60 is corrected as follows:

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Amend appendix A-3 to part 60 by:
0
a. In Method 4 by:
0
i. Revising sections ``<IP_ADDRESS>'' and ``<IP_ADDRESS>'';
0
ii. Adding sections ``<IP_ADDRESS>.1'', ``<IP_ADDRESS>.2'', ``<IP_ADDRESS>.3'',
``<IP_ADDRESS>.4'', ``<IP_ADDRESS>'', and ``<IP_ADDRESS>''; and
0
iii. Revising section ``12.1.3''; and
0
b. In Method 5 by revising sections ``12.3'', ``12.11.1'', ``12.11.2'',
``<IP_ADDRESS>'', and ``<IP_ADDRESS>''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Appendix A-3 to Part 60--Test Methods 4 through 5I

* * * * *

Method 4--Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases

* * * * *
    <IP_ADDRESS> Leak Check of Metering System Shown in Figure 4-1. That
portion of the sampling train from the pump to the orifice meter
should be leak-checked prior to initial use and after each shipment.
Leakage after the pump will result in less volume being recorded
than is actually sampled. The following procedure is suggested (see
Figure 5-2 of Method 5): Close the main valve on the meter box.
Insert a one-hole rubber stopper with rubber tubing attached into
the orifice exhaust pipe. Disconnect and vent the low side of the
orifice manometer. Close off the low side orifice tap. Pressurize
the system to 13 to 18 cm (5 to 7 in.) water column by blowing into
the rubber tubing. Pinch off the tubing and observe the manometer
for one minute. A loss of pressure on the manometer indicates a leak
in the meter box; leaks, if present, must be corrected. <IP_ADDRESS>
Pretest Leak Check. A pretest leak check of the sampling train is
recommended, but not required. If the pretest leak check is
conducted, the following procedure should be used. <IP_ADDRESS>.1 After
the sampling train has been assembled, turn on and set the filter
and probe heating systems to the desired operating temperatures.
Allow time for the temperatures to stabilize. <IP_ADDRESS>.2 Leak-check
the train by first plugging the inlet to the filter holder and
pulling a 380 mm (15 in.) Hg vacuum. Then connect the probe to the
train, and leak-check at approximately 25 mm (1 in.) Hg vacuum;
alternatively, the probe may be leak-checked with the rest of the
sampling train, in one step, at 380 mm (15 in.) Hg vacuum. Leakage
rates in excess of 4 percent of the average sampling rate or 0.00057
m\3\/min (0.020 cfm), whichever is less, are unacceptable. <IP_ADDRESS>.3
Start the pump with the bypass valve fully open and the coarse
adjust valve completely closed. Partially open the coarse adjust
valve, and slowly close the bypass valve until the desired vacuum is
reached. Do not reverse the direction of the bypass valve, as this
will cause water to back up into the filter holder. If the desired
vacuum is exceeded, either leak-check at this higher vacuum, or end
the leak check and start over. <IP_ADDRESS>.4 When the leak check is
completed, first slowly remove the plug from the inlet to the probe,
filter holder, and immediately turn off the vacuum pump. This
prevents the water in the impingers from being forced backward into
the filter holder and the silica gel from being entrained backward
into the third impinger. <IP_ADDRESS> Leak Checks During Sample Run. If,
during the sampling run, a component (e.g., filter assembly or
impinger) change becomes necessary, a leak check shall be conducted
immediately before the change is made. The leak check shall be done
according to the procedure outlined in section <IP_ADDRESS>, except that
it shall be done at a vacuum equal to or greater than the maximum
value recorded up to that point in the test. If the leakage rate is
found to be no greater than 0.00057 m\3\/min (0.020 cfm) or 4
percent of the average sampling rate (whichever is less), the
results are acceptable, and no correction will need to be applied to
the total volume of dry gas metered; if, however, a higher leakage
rate is obtained, either record the leakage rate and plan to correct
the sample volume as shown in section 12.3 of Method 5, or void the
sample run.

    Note: Immediately after component changes, leak checks are
optional. If such leak checks are done, the procedure outlined in
section <IP_ADDRESS> should be used.

    <IP_ADDRESS> Post-Test Leak Check. A leak check of the sampling train is
mandatory at the conclusion of each sampling run. The leak check shall
be performed in accordance with the procedures outlined in section
<IP_ADDRESS>, except that it shall be conducted at a vacuum equal to or
greater than the maximum value reached during the sampling run. If the
leakage rate is found to be no greater than 0.00057 m\3\ min (0.020
cfm) or 4 percent of the average sampling rate (whichever is less), the
results are acceptable, and no correction need be applied to the total

volume of dry gas metered. If, however, a higher leakage rate is
obtained, either record the leakage rate and correct the sample volume
as shown in section 12.3 of Method 5 or void the sampling run.
* * * * *
    12.1.3 Volume of Water Collected in Silica Gel.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR21.004

Where:

K3 = 0.001335 m\3\/g for metric units = 0.04716 ft\3\/g
for English units.
* * * * *

Method 5--Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions From Stationary
Sources

* * * * *
    12.3 Dry Gas Volume. Correct the sample volume measured by the dry
gas meter to standard conditions (20 [deg]C, 760mm Hg or 68 [deg]F,
29.92 in. Hg) by using Equation 5-1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR21.005

Where:

K1 = 0.38572 [deg]K/mm Hg for metric units = 17.636
[deg]R/in. Hg for English units.

    Note: Equation 5-1 can be used as written unless the leakage
rate observed during any of the mandatory leak checks (i.e., the
post-test leak check or leak checks conducted prior to component
changes) exceeds La. If Lp or Li
exceeds La, Equation 5-1 must be modified as follows:

    (a) Case I. No component changes made during sampling run. In this
case, replace Vm in Equation 5-1 with the expression:

(Vm - (Lp - La)[thetas])

    (b) Case II. One or more component changes made during the sampling
run. In this case, replace Vm in Equation 5-1 by the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR21.006

and substitute only for those leakage rates (Li or
Lp) which exceed La.
* * * * *
    12.11.1 Calculation from Raw Data.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR21.007

Where:

K4 = 0.003456 ((mm Hg)(m\3\))/((ml)([deg]K)) for metric
units,
= 0.002668 ((in. Hg)(ft\3\))/((ml)([deg]R)) for English units.

    12.11.2 Calculation from Intermediate Values.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR21.008

Where:

    K5 = 4.3209 for metric units = 0.09450 for English
units.
* * * * *
    <IP_ADDRESS> Calculate flow rate, Q, for each run using the wet test
meter volume, Vw, and the run time, [thgr]. Calculate the
DGM coefficient, Yds, for each run. These calculations are
as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR21.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR21.010

Where:

K1 = 0.38572 [deg]K/mm Hg for metric units = 17.636
[deg]R/in. Hg for English units.
Vw = Wet test meter volume, liter (ft3).
Vds = Dry gas meter volume, liter (ft3).
Tds = Average dry gas meter temperature, [deg]C ([deg]F).
Tadj = 273.15 [deg]C for metric units = 459.67 [deg]F for
English units.
Tw = Average wet test meter temperature, [deg]C ([deg]F).
Pbar = Barometric pressure, mm Hg (in. Hg).
[Delta]p = Dry gas meter inlet differential pressure, mm
H2O (in. H2O).
[thgr] = Run time, min.
* * * * *
    <IP_ADDRESS> Calculate the standard volumes of air passed through the
DGM and the critical orifices, and calculate the DGM calibration
factor, Y, using the equations below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR21.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR21.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR21.013

Where:

Vcr(std) = Volume of gas sample passed through the
critical orifice, corrected to standard conditions, dscm (dscf).
K1 = 0.38572 [deg]K/mm Hg for metric units = 17.636
[deg]R/in. Hg for English units.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-05761 Filed 3-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72667-72669]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27657]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93798; File No. SR-C2-2021-017]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Rules To Make Juneteenth National Independence Day a Holiday of the
Exchange

December 16, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 6, 2021, Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``C2'') 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 Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``C2 Options'')
proposes to amend its rules to make Juneteenth National Independence
Day a holiday of the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/ctwo/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.1 (Days and Hours of
Business) to make Juneteenth National Independence Day a holiday of the
Exchange. On June 17, 2021, Juneteenth National Independence Day was
designated a legal public holiday.\5\ Consistent with broad industry
sentiment \6\ and the approach recommended by the Securities Industry
and Financial Markets Association

(``SIFMA''),\7\ the Exchange proposes to add ``Juneteenth National
Independence Day'' to the existing list of holidays set forth in Rule
5.1(d). As a result, the Exchange will not be open for business on
Juneteenth National Independence Day, which falls on June 19 of each
year. In accordance with Rule 5.1(d), when a holiday falls on a
Saturday, the Exchange will not be open for business on the preceding
Friday, and when it falls on a Sunday, the Exchange will not be open
for business on the succeeding Monday.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Public Law 117-17.
    \6\ See e.g., https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-18/bofa-makesjuneteenth-a-holiday-joining-jpmorgan-wells-fargo?sref=Hhue1scO.
    \7\ SIFMA recommends a full market close in observance of
Juneteenth National Independence Day. See https://www.sifma.org/resources/general/holidayschedule/. See also https://www.sifma.org/resources/news/sifma-revises-2022-fixed-income-market-close-recommendations-in-the-u-s-to-include-full-close-for-juneteenth-national-independence-day/.
    \8\ See Cboe C2 Exchange Rule 5.1(d). There is an exception to
the practice if unusual business conditions exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\9\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\11\ which
provides that the Exchange be organized and have the capacity to be
able to carry out the purposes of the Act and to enforce compliance by
the Exchange's Trading Permit Holders and persons associated with its
Trading Permit Holders with the Act, the rules and regulations
thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5)
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest because the proposed amended rule would clearly state
that the Exchange will not be open for business on Juneteenth National
Independence Day, which is a federal holiday, and would address what
day would be taken off if June 19 fell on a Saturday or Sunday. The
change would thereby promote clarity and transparency in the Exchange
rules by updating the list of holidays of the Exchange. The proposed
rule change is also based on recent proposals by other exchanges.\12\
Therefore, the proposed change does not raise any new or novel issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93186
(September 30, 2021), 86 FR 55068 (October 5, 2021) (SR-NYSE-2021-
56). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93461 (October 28,
2021), 86 FR 60670 (November 3, 2021) (SR-MIAX-2021-55).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\13\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not designed to address any
competitive issue but rather to conform to industry practice with
respect to holidays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
Because the 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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \16\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-C2-2021-017 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-C2-2021-017. 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; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2021-017 and should be
submitted on or before January 12, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-27657 Filed 12-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, DC 20460

			OFFICE OF  PREVENTION, PESTICIDES,  AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

								October 31, 2007

MEMORANDUM:

Subject:	Octhilinone: Response to comments on the Toxicology
Disciplinary Chapter and the Risk Assessment for the Reregistration
Eligibility Decision Document.

To:		K. Avivah Jacob, Chemical Review Manager,

		Regulatory Management Branch II

Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

From: 		Timothy F. McMahon, Ph.D.

Senior Toxicologist

Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

DP Barcode:

Chemical Name:2-n-Octyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one (Octhilinone or OIT)

PC Code:		099901

CAS Registry No. 	26530-20-1

In a letter dated August 17, 2007 from the registrants of Octhilinone
(Rohm and Haas Company and Acti-Chem Specialties, Inc.), comments were
made on the Agency’s Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document
disciplinary chapters for Octhilinone.  The purpose of this memorandum
is to respond to the comments made on the Toxicology Disciplinary
chapter and the Risk Assessment chapter for Octhilinone.

The comments with regard to the risk assessment were made on pages 9-12
of the registrants’ letter, while the comments on the Toxicology
chapter were made on pages 13-21 of the registrants’ letter.

Comments on the Risk Assessment for OIT

Comment (1):

Based on existing Agency policy and precedent, OIT should be regulated
solely as an irritant and no dermal risk assessment should be conducted
for any occupational or residential use.

The registrants claim that the Agency has determined that no dermal risk
assessment is appropriate under circumstances in the case of severely
irritating or corrosive chemicals.  The registrants cite examples from
the Health Effects Division, OPP, for endothall where dermal risk
assessments were not conducted on the basis of the irritation potential
of endothall.

Agency response:

The Antimicrobials Division, OPP, in conjunction with scientists from
the Health Effects Division and the Biopesticides Division, OPP,
developed a policy regarding the use of dermal irritation as an endpoint
for risk assessment in 2006.  It was necessary to develop such a policy
based on the unique exposure patterns for certain antimicrobial uses,
particularly with regard to treated articles (carpet, fabrics, treated
wood).  This policy has been applied to several chemicals for which RED
documents have been developed, and is also applied in the case of OIT
for the short-term dermal risk assessment only.

Comments on the Toxicology Disciplinary Chapter for OIT

Comment (1):

On page 7 of the Toxicology chapter, the phrase “non-guideline”
appears before the study title header.

Agency response:

 Although this is a non-guideline study, the designation belongs at the
end of the summary and will be relocated to that section.

Comment (2):

The comment was made that a subchronic oral toxicity study in rodents is
not required to support the current registered uses of OIT as there are
no food uses. However, oral subchronic toxicity studies in the rat and
dog have been conducted.

Agency Response:

Subchronic toxicity testing is a data requirement for all use patterns
of antimicrobial pesticides and is not limited to food uses only. The
comment by the registrants above was made in reference to the
unacceptable classification assigned to the subchronic toxicity test
summaries presented in the Toxicology chapter.  There are acceptable
subchronic toxicity tests for OIT by the dermal and inhalation routes.
When the newly submitted subchronic toxicity data are reviewed, these
summaries can be added in the future to the Toxicology chapter if found
to be acceptable.

Comment (3):

On page 9 of the Toxicology chapter, “non-guideline” appears before
the study title header.

Agency response:

Although this is a non-guideline study, the designation belongs at the
end of the summary and will be relocated to that section.

Comment (4):

With regard to the 21-day dermal toxicity study in rabbits summarized on
page 10-11 of the Toxicology chapter, the registrants note that the
discussion of this study should be corrected to identify severe
irritation as the ‘critical effect’ and that “the body weight gain
effects are secondary to the severe irritation.

Agency response:

The 21-day dermal toxicity study was considered unacceptable and was not
used for risk assessment purposes.

Comment (5):

With respect to the 90-day dermal toxicity in rats listed on pages 11-12
of the Toxicology chapter, the registrants state that the discussion of
this study should be corrected to state that, “in fact, there is no
systemic toxicity found in the study. The minor effects are clearly
secondary to severe irritation in the compromised animals at the high
dose level.”

Agency response:

The 90-day dermal toxicity study listed on pages 11-12 of the Toxicology
chapter stated both systemic effects and skin effects from dermal
application of OIT. The hematologic effects observed in this study have
been observed in other studies conducted with OIT and thus are
considered relevant for determination of  doses causing systemic
toxicity.  The irritation effects were considered separately in this
study.

Comment (6):

The registrants commented that the discussion of the 90-day dermal
toxicity study in the rat (MRID 43935706) summarized on pages 12-13 of
the Toxicology chapter needs to be revised in light of submission of an
amendment to the report (MRID 44307101) where microscopic examination of
the lower dose groups was reported.

Agency response:

Comment (7):

The registrants state that the 10-day inhalation toxicity study was only
a dose range-finding study and was not intended to fulfill a guideline
requirement.  The study should not be interpreted to infer a NOAEL
value.

Agency response:

If the study was conducted as a range-finding study, the conclusions in
the Toxicology chapter can be modified to reflect this.  Note, however,
that this study was not used for risk assessment purposes and has no
influence on the current risk assessment for OIT.

Comment (8):

The registrant states that “EPA’s assessment of this study (MRID
41544701) is incomplete. There is no evidence of systemic toxicity at
any dose tested.”  It is further stated that “it is inapprorpriate
to calculate a systemic NOEL from this 90-day study, as there was no
systemic toxicity…”

Agency response:

The selection of the NOAEL of  0.64 mg/m3 in this study would not change
if the other effects listed under the LOAEL (clinical signs,  decreased
body weights, fluid in the uterus, and the pulmonary histopathological
findings at the terminal sacrifice for males and females) were removed.
The histopathological effects are considered systemic and are also
recognized as a result of the irritancy of the test chemical.

Comment (9):

The registrants have commented on Section 4.3 of the Toxicology chapter
regarding developmental toxicity of OIT.  They have commented that there
are no systemic effects observed in any of the developmental toxicity
studies summarized in the chapter.

Agency response:

The NOAEL values determined from review of the developmental toxicity
data do not change whether one includes or excludes the effects claimed
by the registrant as the result of the irritancy of the chemical.

Comment (10):

The registrant has commented on section 4.4 of the Toxicology chapter,
reproductive toxicity.  The registrant states that a reproductive
toxicity study is not required for OIT as there are no food uses.
However, a 2-generation reproductive toxicity study has been recently
submitted to evaluate reproductive toxicity of OIT in rats.

Agency response:

The Agency has not, as of this date, completed a formal review of the
reproductive toxicity study on OIT. When such review is final, the
executive summary can be made available for the Toxicology chapter.  The
Agency agrees that there are no dietary exposures from the currently
registered uses of OIT.

Comment (11):

The registrant has commented on Section 4.5 of the Toxicology chaper for
OIT. The registrant states that chronic toxicity studies in rodents are
not required to support the current registered uses of OIT as there are
no food uses. Based on the available data for OIT and related
isothiazolone biocides, OIT does not present a chronic hazard.

Agency response:

The Agency is currently deliberating whether data from
structurally-related isothiazolone biocides can be used to address the
chronic toxicity of OIT.  There are no acceptable chronic toxicity data
on OIT itself.

Comment (12):

The registrant has commented on Section 4.6 of the Toxicology chapter.
The registrant states that OIT does not present a carcinogenic hazard
based on the available data for OIT and related isothiazolone biocides.

Agency response:

The Agency is currently deliberating whether available data from
structurally-related isothiazolone biocides can be used to address the
carcinogenicity of OIT.  There are no acceptable carcinogenicity data on
OIT itself.

Comment (13):

The registrant commented on Section 4.7, Mutagenicity. The registrant
states that the mutgenicity database is complete and that OIT does not
pose a genotoxic hazard.

Agency response:

The Agency recognizes that the majority of the mutagenicity data on OIT
are negative.  The Agency notes however, that one study (MRID 40647503)
is presumptively positive for chromosome aberrations in the absence of
data to clarify whether the effect was based on the test material,
experimentation conditions, or a combination of both.  The California
Department of Pesticide Regulation in its summary of Toxicology data for
OIT agreed with the positive response observed in this study.

Comment (14):

The registrant has commented on Section 4.8, Neurotoxicity. The
registrant states that there is no evidence for neurotoxicity of OIT in
the database and that requiring an acute neurotoxicity screening battery
on the basis of results of acute oral and dermal testing is inconsistent
with the results of repeat dose toxicity testing, where no evidence of
neurotoxicity testing is observed.

Agency response:

The Agency reserves the decision on the requirement for an acute
neurotoxicity screening battery pending review of the recently submitted
subchronic study in the rat, where functional observations were included
and no evidence of neurotoxicity was reported. If final review of this
study shows no evidence of neurotoxicity, then the Agency will not
require further neurotoxicity testing for OIT.

Comment (15):

The registrant has commented on Section 4.9 of the Toxicology chapter.
The registrant has stated that a general metabolism study is not
required for OIT.  However, a metabolism study has been conducted and
recently submitted to the Agency.

Agency response:

The Agency can include the summary of the submitted metabolism study
once the study review is finalized.

Comment (16):

The registrant has commented that the statement regarding dermal
absorption on page 21 of the Toxicology chapter be eliminated. A dermal
absorption factor is not required for OIT.

Agency response:

The Agency acknowledges that currently a dermal absorption factor was
not needed for OIT on the basis of route-specific toxicity studies on
which to base a dermal risk assessment.  A dermal absorption study was
recently submitted and can be used for any future purpose if found to be
acceptable.  The statement as it appears in on page 21 (“Since a
dermal endpoint was selected from a dermal toxicity study, a dermal
absorption factor is not needed for Octhilinone”) is not
inappropriate.

Comment (17):

The registrant has commented that the statement on pages 21-22 of the
Toxicology chapter regarding pre- and post-natal toxicity are not
appropriate to this section.

Agency response:

The Agency agrees that the comments in this section are related to
neurotoxicity and not pre- and post-natal toxicity of OIT. Thus these
comments have been removed and a statement more specific to pre- and
post-natal toxicity has been written.

Comment (18):

The registrant states that the Toxicology study summary table needs to
be significantly revised in accordance with the comments made above on
the various studies for OIT.  The Toxicity endpoint selection table
should also be revised to reflect that no dermal assessment should be
conducted based on the irritancy of OIT.

Agency response:

The Agency is satisfied with the conclusions currently shown in the
Toxicology summary table.

The Agency is also not changing the selected endpoints for OIT with
regard to dermal risk assessement.  The selected studies and effects are
consistent with Agency practice for other antimicrobial pesticide
chemicals.

 PAGE

Page   PAGE  8  of   NUMPAGES  9


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 74757]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29435]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4201-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2014-0003]

Hawaii; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Hawaii (FEMA-4201-DR), dated November 3,
2014, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: November 3, 2014.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated November 3, 2014, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas
of the State of Hawaii resulting from the Pu[revaps]u
[revaps]O[revaps]o volcanic eruption and lava flow beginning on
September 4, 2014, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists in the State of Hawaii.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide assistance for emergency
protective measures (Category B) under the Public Assistance program
and Hazard Mitigation in the designated area. Consistent with the
requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal
funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be
limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds
provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be
limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the
exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a
higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance
Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented
pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kenneth K. Suiso, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following area of the State of Hawaii has been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-29435 Filed 12-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43842-43843]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17038]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R07-RCRA-2013-0447; FRL-9833-6]

State of Kansas; Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Kansas has applied to EPA for final authorization for changes
to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final authorization to
Kansas.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
August 21, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Lisa Haugen, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7,
Enforcement Coordination Office, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas
66219.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Lisa Haugen,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, Enforcement Coordination
Office, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of
operation of Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding
legal holidays.
    Please see the immediate final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Haugen, Region 7, Enforcement
Coordination Office, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219,
Phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the Federal
Register, EPA is authorizing the changes by an immediate final rule
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse
comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set
forth in the immediate final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are
received in response to this action, no further activity is
contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant
adverse comments, the immediate final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this
action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives
adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of
the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional
information, see the immediate final rule which is located in the rules
section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: June 27, 2013.
Mark Hague,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2013-17038 Filed 7-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P