[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43141-43143]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17759]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75460; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2015-48]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Extending the Pilot
Period Applicable to the Customer Best Execution Auction per Rule
971.1NY Until July 18, 2016

July 15, 2015.
    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 July 2, 2015, 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 and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot period applicable to the
Customer Best Execution Auction (``CUBE''), per Rule 971.1NY, until
July 18, 2016. 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 extend the pilot period applicable to
certain aspects of the Customer Best Execution--or CUBE--Auction, which
is currently set to expire on July 17, 2015, until July 18, 2016.
Background
    Rule 971.1NY sets forth an electronic crossing mechanism for
single-leg orders with a price improvement auction on the Exchange,
referred to as the CUBE Auction.\4\ The CUBE Auction, which was
approved in April 2014, is designed to provide price improvement for
paired orders of any size.\5\ Two aspects of the CUBE were approved on
a pilot basis--Rule 971.1NY(b)(1)(B), which establishes the permissible
range of executions for CUBE Auctions for fewer than 50 contracts; and
Rule 971.1NY(b)(8), which establishes that the minimum size for a CUBE
Auction is one contract (together, the ``CUBE Pilot'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See generally Rule 971.1NY (Electronic Cross Transactions).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72025 (April 25,
2014), 79 FR 24779 (May 1, 2014) (NYSEMKT-2014-17) (the ``CUBE
Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An ATP Holder may initiate a CUBE Auction by electronically
submitting for execution a limit order it represents as agent on behalf
of a public customer, broker dealer, or any other entity (``CUBE
Order'') against principal interest or against any other order it
represents as agent, provided the initiating ATP Holder complies with
Rule 971.1NY.\6\ Rule 971.1NY(b)(1) sets forth the permissible range of
executions for a CUBE Order.\7\ Pursuant to the CUBE Pilot, a CUBE
Order for fewer than 50 contracts is subject to tighter ranges of
execution than larger CUBE Orders to maximize price improvement.\8\
Specifically, if the CUBE Order is for fewer than 50 contracts, the
range of permissible execution will be equal to or better than the
National Best Bid/Offer (``NBBO''), provided that such price must be at
least one cent better than any displayed interest in the Exchange's
Consolidated Book.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In addition, CUBE provides for the automatic execution,
under certain conditions, of a crossing transaction where there is a
public customer order in the same options series on each side.
    \7\ Subject to specified exceptions, a CUBE Order to buy (sell)
may execute at prices equal to or between the initiating price as
the upper (lower) bound and the National Best Bid (``NBB'')
(National Best Offer (``NBO'')) as the lower (upper) bound. See Rule
971.1NY(b).
    \8\ See Rule 971.1NY(b)(1)(B). Rule 971.1NY(b)(8), also subject
to the pilot period, provides that the minimum size for a CUBE
Auction is one contract.
    \9\ See Rule 971.1NY(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CUBE Pilot was initially approved for a one-year pilot.\10\
Pursuant to Commentary .01 to Rule 971.1NY, the CUBE Pilot would, if
not amended, end on July 17, 2015. In connection with the CUBE Pilot,
the Exchange agreed to submit certain data to provide supporting
evidence that, among other things, there is meaningful competition for
all size orders and that there is an active and liquid market
functioning on the Exchange outside of the CUBE Auction.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See CUBE Approval Order, supra, n. 5. The CUBE Pilot was
subsequently extended, until July 17, 2015, in order to align the
expiration of the pilot period with that of other competing options
exchange that offer electronic price improvement auctions similar to
the CUBE. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74695 (April 9,
2015), 80 FR 20274 (April 15, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-28).
    \11\ See CUBE Approval Order, supra, n. 5 at 79 FR 24779, at
24785-86, fn. 94-95. See also Commentary .01 to Rule 971.1NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Extend the Operation of the CUBE Pilot
    The Exchange implemented the CUBE Auction to provide an electronic
crossing mechanism for single-leg orders with a price improvement
auction. The CUBE Pilot was designed to create tighter markets and
ensure that each order receives the best possible price. The Exchange
believes that the CUBE Pilot attracts order flow and promotes
competition and price improvement opportunities for CUBE Orders of
fewer than 50 contracts. The Exchange believes that extending the pilot
period is appropriate because it

will allow the Exchange and the Commission additional time to analyze
data regarding the CUBE Pilot that the Exchange has committed to
provide.\12\ As such, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to
extend the current operation of the Pilot. Through this filing, the
Exchange seeks to amend Commentary .01 to Rule 971.1NY and extend the
current pilot period until July 18, 2016.\13\ The Exchange notes that
it would retain the text of Rules 971.1NY(b)(1)(B) and 971.1NY(b)(8).
In further support of this proposed rule change, the Exchange would
continue to submit to the Commission detailed data from, and analysis
of, the CUBE Pilot. Further, the Exchange represents that it will
provide certain additional data requested by the Commission regarding
trading in the CUBE Auction for the six (6) month period from January
1, 2015 through June 30, 2015. The Exchange agrees to provide this data
by January 18, 2016 and to make the summary of the data provided to the
Commission publicly available. The Exchange continues to believe that
there remains meaningful competition for all size orders and that there
is an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of
the CUBE Auction. The Exchange believes the additional data will
substantiate the Exchange's belief and provide further evidence in
support of permanent approval of the CUBE Pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
    \13\ See proposed Commentary .01 to Rule 971.1NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \14\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \15\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that extending the pilot period is consistent
with these principles because the CUBE Pilot is reasonably designed to
create tighter markets and ensure that each order receives the best
possible price, which benefits investors by increasing competition
thereby maximizing opportunities for price improvement. The proposed
extension would allow the CUBE Pilot to continue uninterrupted, thereby
avoiding any potential investor confusion that could result from a
temporary interruption in the CUBE Pilot. Because the CUBE Pilot is
applicable to all CUBE Orders for fewer than 50 contracts, and to the
requirement that the minimum size of the CUBE Auction is one contract,
the proposal to extend the pilot merely acts to maintain status quo on
the Exchange, which promotes just and equitable principles of trade and
removes impediments to, and perfects the mechanism of, a free and open
market and a national market system. The extension of the pilot period
will allow the Commission and the Exchange to continue to monitor the
CUBE Pilot to ascertain whether there is meaningful competition for all
size orders and whether there is an active and liquid market
functioning on the Exchange outside of the CUBE Auction.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change simply
extends an established pilot program for an additional period and would
allow for further analysis of the CUBE Pilot. In addition, the proposed
extension would allow the CUBE Pilot to continue uninterrupted, thereby
avoiding any potential investor confusion that could result from a
temporary interruption in the CUBE Pilot. Thus, the proposal would also
serve to promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing
burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor protection.

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

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

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

    Because the 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.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \17\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\18\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing, stating that the proposed
rule change simply extends an established pilot program and that the
waiver would allow the pilot to continue uninterrupted, thereby
avoiding potential confusion for investors. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the
Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the
proposed rule change operative upon filing.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \19\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of 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) \20\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 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-2015-48 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-48. 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. 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-2015-48 and should be submitted
on or before August 10, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-17759 Filed 7-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01P


[Federal Register: July 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 129)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32433-32437]
[DOCID:fr08jy09-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0739; FRL-8423-3]

Sodium 1,4-Dialkyl Sulfosuccinates; Exemption from the
Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of sodium 1,4-dialkyl sulfosuccinates
including sodium 1,4-dihexyl sulfosuccinate (CAS Reg. No. 3006-15-3);
sodium 1,4-diisobutyl sulfosuccinate (CAS Reg. No. 127-39-9); and
sodium 1,4-dipentyl sulfosuccinate (CAS Reg. No. 922-80-5) when used as
inert ingredients in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops.
The Joint Inerts Task Force (JITF), Cluster Support Team Number 13
submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum
permissible level for residues of sodium 1,4-dialkyl sulfosuccinates.

DATES: This regulation is effective July 8, 2009. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 8, 2009,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0739. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerry Leifer, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing electronically available documents at
http://www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access
a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations
at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR cite
at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To access the OPPTS Harmonized
Guidelines referenced in this document, go directly to the guidelines
at http://www.epa.gpo/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0739 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be
mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178
on or before September 8, 2009.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0738, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background

    In the Federal Register of December 3, 2008 (73 FR 73640) (FRL-
8390-4), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
8E7423) by The Joint Inerts Task Force (JITF), Cluster Support Team
Number 23 (CST 13), c/o CropLife America, 1156 15th Street, N.W., Suite
400, Washington, DC 20005. The petition was subsequently redesignated
as PP 8E7422. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.920 be amended by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of the inert ingredients sodium 1,4-dialkyl sulfosuccinates
including sodium 1,4-dihexyl sulfosuccinate (CAS Reg. No. 3006-15-3);
sodium 1,4-diisobutyl sulfosuccinate (CAS Reg. No. 127-39-9); and
sodium 1,4-dipentyl sulfosuccinate (CAS Reg. No. 922-80-5) (these
substances are also collectively referred to throughout this document
as SDSS). That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by
the JITF CST 13, the petitioner which is available to the public in the
docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no substantive comments
received in response to the notice of filing.
    This petition was submitted in response to a final rule of August
9, 2006, (71 FR 45415) (FRL-8084-1) in which the Agency revoked, under
section 408(e)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
the existing exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of certain inert ingredients because of insufficient data to
make the determination of safety required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2).
The expiration date for the tolerance exemptions subject to revocation
was August 9, 2008, which was later extended to August 9, 2009 (73 FR
45317) to allow for data to be submitted to support the establishment
of tolerance exemptions for these inert ingredients prior to the
effective date of the tolerance exemption revocation.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance (the

legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if
EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii)
of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures
and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.'' This
includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings,
but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of
FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants
and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a
tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue....''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of sodium
1,4-dialkyl sulfosuccinates when used as inert ingredients in pesticide
formulations applied to growing crops or food-producing animals. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing
tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Sodium 1,4-dialkyl sulfosuccinates have moderate to low acute oral
toxicity and low dermal acute toxicity. There was no hazard identified
in a combined repeat dose rat reproductive/developmental screening
study at the limit dose of 1,000 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) to
either parental animals or their offspring. There is no concern for
neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity or carcinogenicity for SDSS.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of any
observed effects caused by the sodium 1,4-dialkyl sulfosuccinates as
well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-
observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be
found at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``Sodium 1,4-Dialkyl
Sulfosuccinates (JITF CST 13 Inert Ingredients). Human Health Risk
Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a
Tolerance When Used as Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Formulations''
pages 6-8 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0739.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no
adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a
NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-term,
intermediate-term, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing
food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable
UFs is not exceeded. This latter value is referred to as the Level of
Concern (LOC).
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates
risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    There was no hazard identified in a combined repeated dose toxicity
study with the reproduction/developmental toxicity screening test in
rats with SDSS at the limit dose of 1,000 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/
kg/day) to either parental animals or their offspring. Thus, due to
their low potential hazard and the lack of a hazard endpoint, the
Agency has determined that a quantitative risk assessment using safety
factors applied to a point of departure protective of an identified
hazard endpoint is not appropriate.
    No mutagenicity, genotoxicity or chronic toxicity data have been
located for any of the sodium 1,4-dialkyl sulfosuccinates. However, no
structural alerts for genotoxicity or carcinogenicity were identified
in a qualitative structure activity relationship (SAR) database, DEREK
Version 11. In addition, data for similar compounds showed they are not
mutagenic or carcinogenic. The primary alcohol mammalian metabolites of
SDSS have been shown to be negative in the in vitro Ames test.
Furthermore, a structurally similar compound that is also used as an
inert ingredient, sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate (CAS Reg. No. 577-11-7)
was not mutagenic, or carcinogenic in a chronic rat study or a tumor
promotion study. Based on the above, sodium 1,4-dialkyl sulfosuccinates
are not expected to be carcinogenic.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure (from food and feed uses and drinking water).
Since an endpoint for risk assessment was not identified, an exposure
assessment for SDSS was not conducted. Any possible dietary exposure
SDSS from their use as inert ingredients in pesticide products would be
through consumption of food to which pesticide products containing SDSS
have been applied and through drinking water (from runoff).
    2. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Since an endpoint for
risk assessment was not identified, a quantitative residential exposure
assessment for SDSS was not conducted. Residential exposures to SDSS
may occur as a result of the use of pesticide products containing SDSS
as inert ingredients (such as

antimicrobial hard surface cleaners) as well as from other,
nonpesticidal, residential use products containing SDSS.
    3. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found SDSS to share a common mechanism of toxicity with
any other substances, and sodium 1,4-dialkyl sulfosuccinates do not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For
the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
sodium 1,4-dialkyl sulfosuccinates do not have a common mechanism of
toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts
to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to
evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety
factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    The toxicity database for SDSS is adequate for FQPA assessment and
the potential exposure is adequately characterized given the low
toxicity of the chemical. There was no hazard identified in a combined
repeat dose rat reproductive/developmental screening study at the limit
dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day to either parental animals or their offspring.
There is no concern for neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity or
carcinogenicity for the sodium 1,4-dialkyl sulfosuccinates.
    Based on this information, there is no concern, at this time, for
increased sensitivity to infants and children to sodium 1,4-dialkyl
sulfosuccinates when used as inert ingredients in pesticide
formulations applied to growing crops and a safety factor analysis has
not been used to assess risk. For the same reason, EPA has determined
that an additional safety factor is not needed to protect the safety of
infants and children.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human
health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to
pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the
inert ingredient in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of
the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other
exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential
settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not
necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
    Since an endpoint for risk assessment was not identified, a
quantitative dietary risk assessment for sodium 1,4-dialkyl
sulfosuccinates was not conducted. Given the lack of concern for hazard
posed by SDSS, EPA concludes that there are no dietary risks of concern
as a result of exposure to SDSS in food and water. Similarly, based on
the lack of concern for hazard posed by the SDSS inert ingredients, the
Agency concludes that there are no non-dietary/non-occupational
(residential) risks of concern for these inert ingredients. The Agency
has not identified any concerns for carcinogenicity relating to sodium
1,4-dialkyl sulfosuccinates.
    Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population
or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to residues of
sodium 1,4-dialkyl sulfosuccinates.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

B. International Residue Limits

    The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for
sodium 1,4-dialkyl sulfosuccinates nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue
Levels been established for any food crops at this time.

VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established for residues of sodium 1,4-dialkyl sulfosuccinates when
used inert ingredients in pesticide formulations applied to growing
crops or to animals.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition
submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001)
or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the exemptions in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments,

on the relationship between the national government and the States or
tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined
that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule
does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 25, 2009.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.920, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the
following inert ingredients to read as follows:

Sec.  180.920  Inert ingredients used pre-harvest; exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Inert Ingredients               Limits               Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              * * * * * * *
Sodium 1,4-dihexyl                ..................  Surfactants,
 sulfosuccinate (CAS Reg. No.                          related adjuvants
 3006-15-3).                                           of surfactants
                              * * * * * * *
Sodium 1,4-diisobutyl             ..................  Surfactants,
 sulfosuccinate (CAS Reg. No.                          related adjuvants
 127-39-9).                                            of surfactants
                              * * * * * * *
Sodium 1,4-dipentyl               ..................  Surfactants,
 sulfosuccinate (CAS Reg. No.                          related adjuvants
 922-80-5).                                            of surfactants
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. E9-16086 Filed 7-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 32078]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13682]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0228; FRL-9928-08-Region 9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Eastern
Kern Air Pollution Control District, Mojave Desert Air Quality
Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District
(EKAPCD) and Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD)
portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
polyester resin operations and oil-water separators. The EPA is
proposing to approve local rules that regulate these emission sources
under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by July 6, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2015-0228, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and the EPA will
not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in
the body of your comment. If you send email directly to the EPA, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the public comment. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3848<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the following local
rules: EKAPCD Rule 432 Polyester Resin Operations and MDAQMD Rule 464
Oil-Water Separators. In the Rules and Regulations section of this
Federal Register, the EPA is approving these local rules in a direct
final action without prior proposal because the EPA believes these SIP
revisions are not controversial. If the EPA receives adverse comments,
however, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final
rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this
proposed rule. Please note that if the EPA receives adverse comment on
an amendment, paragraph or section of this rule and if that provision
may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as
final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.
    The EPA does not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If the EPA does not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: May 8, 2015.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015-13682 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 53439-53441]
[DOCID:fr11se06-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP05-357-003]

Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline, L.P.; Notice of Intent To Prepare
an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Creole Trail Segment I
Amendment Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

September 5, 2006.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that
discusses the environmental impacts of Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline,
L.P. (Cheniere) proposed Creole Trail Segment I Amendment or Project)
which involves extension of Creole Trail Pipeline by adding about 18.1
miles of 42-inch-diameter Pipeline (Segment I) to be located in Cameron
Parish, Louisiana. The Creole Trail LNG and Pipeline Project was
authorized on June 15, 2006.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On June 15, 2006, the Commission approved the Creole Trail
LNG and Pipeline Project in Docket Nos. CP05-360-000, CP05-357-000,
CP05-358-000, and CP05-359-000. The Creole Trail LNG Terminal and
Pipeline Project included a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal and
associated LNG facilities, 116.8 miles of dual 42-inch-diameter
mainline pipeline, and associated pipeline facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping period that will
be used to gather environmental input from the public and interested
agencies on the Project. Please note that the scoping period will close
on October 5, 2006. Details on how to submit comments are provided in
the Public Participation section of this notice.
    This notice is being sent to potentially affected landowners along
the Project route; Federal, State, and local government agencies;
elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native
American tribes; and local libraries and newspapers.
    With this notice, we \2\ are asking Federal, State, and local
agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
These agencies may choose to participate once they have evaluated the
proposal relative to their responsibilities. Agencies which would like
to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing
comments described later in this notice. We encourage government
representatives to notify their constituents of this planned Project
and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some affected landowners may be contacted by a Project
representative about the acquisition of an easement to construct,
operate, and maintain the proposed pipeline. If so, the company should
seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. In the event that
the Project is certificated by the Commission, that approval conveys
the right of eminent domain for securing easements for the pipeline.
Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the
company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with
State law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' addresses a number
of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and
how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is available for
viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov).

    A map illustrating the proposed Project is provided in Appendix
1.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies are available on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) at the

``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference and
Files Maintenance Branch at 1-202-502-8371. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary refer to the Additional Information section
of this notice.

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

Non-Jurisdictional Facilities

    There are no proposed non-jurisdictional facilities associated with
this proposal.

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the Project would require a total of 273.30 acres
of land, of which about 234.76 acres of land would be used for pipeline
right-of-way and about 38.54 acres for temporary construction work
areas at certain waterbody, road, pipeline crossings and for pipe
storage areas, including a permanent access road. After construction
about 108.81 acres would be retained as permanent pipeline right-of-way
and permanent access road.

The EA Process

    NEPA requires the Commission to take into account the environmental
impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the
issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity under
Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act. NEPA also requires us to discover and
address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is
referred to as ``scoping''. The main goal of the scoping process is to
focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By
this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff requests public comments on
the scope of the issues to address in the EA. All comments received are
considered during the preparation of the EA. By this notice, we are
also asking Federal, State, and local agencies with jurisdiction and/or
special expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally
cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA. Agencies that would
like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for
filing comments below.
    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed Project under these
general headings:

 Land use.
 Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands.
 Coastal marsh.
 Cultural resources.
 Vegetation and wildlife.
 Endangered and threatened species.

    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed Project
or portions of the Project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be included in the EA.
Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA
would be published and mailed to Federal, State, and local agencies,
Native American tribes, public interest groups, interested individuals,
affected landowners, newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's
official service list for this proceeding. A comment period would be
allotted for review of the EA. All comments received on the EA would be
considered before we make our recommendations to the Commission. The EA
is used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine
whether the Project is in the public convenience and necessity.
    To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the
instructions in the public participation section described later in
this notice.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have identified several issues that we think deserve attention
based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and the
environmental information provided by Creole Trail. This preliminary
list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.
 Water Resources
 Impact on water quality; and
 Impact on wetlands and marsh
 Endangered and Threatened Species
 Land use

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the Project. By becoming a commentor, your
concerns may be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the
proposal, alternatives to the proposal (including alternative locations
and routes), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The
more specific your comments, the more useful they may be. Please
carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are
received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Magalie
R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 2.
     Reference Docket No. CP05-357-003 on the original and both
copies.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before October 5, 2006.
    Please note that we are continuing to experience delays in mail
deliveries from the U.S. Postal Service. As a result, we will include
all comments that we receive within a reasonable time frame in our
environmental analysis of this Project. However, the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments or interventions
or protests to this proceeding. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under

the ``e-Filing'' link and the link to the User's Guide. Before you can
file comments, you will need to open a free account which can be
created on-line.

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an official party to the proceeding known as an
``intervenor''. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process.
Among other things, intervenors have the right to receive copies of
case-related Commission documents and filings by other intervenors.
Likewise, each intervenor must send one electronic copy (using the
Commission's eFiling system) or 14 paper copies of its filings to the
Secretary of the Commission and must send a copy of its filings to all
other parties on the Commission's service list for this proceeding. If
you want to become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene
according to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 CFR 385.214, see Appendix 2). Only intervenors have the
right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision.
    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your environmental comments considered.

Environmental Mailing List

    If you do not want to send comments at this time, but still want to
remain on our mailing list, please return the attached Mailing List
Retention Form (Appendix 3). If you do not return the form, you will be
taken off the mailing list.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link.

Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

contact 1-202-502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx
 along with other related information.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-14980 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMORANDUM

To:		Commercial Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Docket
From:		Amy Hambrick, US EPA
Date:		April 23, 2012
Subject:	EPA Meeting with Commenters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA met with Richard Stoll (Foley & Lardner, LLP), Andrew O'Hare (Portland Cement Association), and Michael Pelan (LaFarge) to discuss their public comments submitted to the CISWI docket.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 167 (Thursday, August 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51383-51385]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20465]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72899; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2014-067]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order
Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Rule 5305 To Eliminate the
Automatic Transfer of Companies From The NASDAQ Global Market to The
NASDAQ Global Select Market

August 22, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On June 25, 2014, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend its rules in order to eliminate the
Exchange's automatic annual review and transfer of qualified companies
from The NASDAQ Global Market to The NASDAQ Global Select Market. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on July 10, 2014.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters
regarding the proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72538 (July 3,
2014), 79 FR 39446 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    NASDAQ consists of three listing tiers: The NASDAQ Global Select
Market (``Global Select'' or ``Global Select Market''), The NASDAQ
Global Market (``Global Market''), and The NASDAQ Capital Market
(``Capital

Market''). Each tier has different listing requirements; Capital Market
has the lowest quantitative criteria to qualify for listing and Global
Select has the highest quantitative criteria to qualify for listing. In
its filing NASDAQ states that the tiers were designed to appeal to
companies with different characteristics.\4\ Currently, pursuant to
NASDAQ Rule 5305(b), NASDAQ conducts an annual review of all Global
Market-listed companies' qualifications each year in November and
December based on data as of October 31, and automatically places
qualified Global Market companies in the Global Select tier the
following January.\5\ While this annual review currently occurs
automatically, a Global Market-listed company also may apply to list on
the Global Select tier at any time.\6\ Companies transferring from the
Global Market to the Global Select Market, whether as part of the
annual review process or upon their own application, are not assessed
entry or application fees.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Notice, 79 FR at 39446.
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has proposed to eliminate NASDAQ's automatic annual
review and transfer of qualified companies to the Global Select Market.
Under the proposal, NASDAQ would review Global Market-listed companies
for transfer to the Global Select Market only upon application by the
company. To effect this change, the Exchange has proposed to delete the
text of Rule 5305(b). According to the Exchange, the reasons for the
implementation of the automatic annual review and transfer process in
2006, when the Global Select tier was created, are less relevant today,
and eliminating this process would remove an unnecessary burden on
NASDAQ staff.\8\ NASDAQ proposes to implement this change upon
approval, and states that it will notify Global Market-listed companies
about this change via an email communication.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id. at 39446-47. NASDAQ notes that 228 securities
transferred to the Global Select Market in January 2011 based on
NASDAQ's automatic review, and between 58 and 77 securities
transferred in each subsequent year. Id. at 39446 n.5.
    \9\ Id. at 39446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the proposed rule change, companies automatically
transferred in January 2014 would be the last group automatically
transferred upon NASDAQ's review under Rule 5305(b). A Global Market-
listed company could continue to apply for transfer to the Global
Select tier at any point during the year by submitting a listing
application, and the review of an application would continue to be
conducted without cost to the issuer.\10\ Qualified companies that
apply could transfer immediately upon confirmation by NASDAQ staff that
the company meets the Global Select Market listing requirements, and
would not owe any entry or other fees in connection with a transfer
from the Global Market to the Global Select tier.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id. at 39446-47. The Commission also notes that annual fees
for continued listing are the same for the Global Market and Global
Select tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\12\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest; and are not designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the proposed rule change, Global Market-listed
companies will have to monitor whether they qualify for transfer to the
Global Select Market and submit an application for listing on the
Global Select Market, rather than rely on the Exchange's automatic
review and transfer process. The Commission observes that this could
create an additional burden for Global Market-listed issuers that would
otherwise rely on the Exchange's automatic process for transfer to the
Global Select tier. The Exchange acknowledges this burden, but believes
that, on balance, it is not significant enough to warrant continuing
the automatic transfer process, which places a burden on NASDAQ staff
that the Exchange believes is unnecessary.\14\ The Exchange notes that
much of the information required for the application is pre-populated
for a company, and asserts that, given the ease of the application
process, it would continue to be simple for qualified companies to
request review at any time and without cost.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Notice, 79 FR at 39446-47.
    \15\ Id. at 39446. The Exchange states that the application to
transfer from the Global Market to the Global Select Market is
available on its Web site, completed online and pre-populated with
the company's identifying information based on its symbol and CIK
code or CUSIP number. The listed company generally will only need to
provide contact information, affirm the accuracy of the information
in the application, and accept the Listing Agreement. Id. at n. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Balancing the apparent simplicity of the application process and
the fact that Global Market-listed companies may apply for a transfer
to the Global Select tier at any time and with no charge from NASDAQ
against the unnecessary burden that NASDAQ asserts is placed on its
staff by the automatic review and transfer process, the Commission
believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable and consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it promotes just and equitable
principles of trade, protects investors and the public interest, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between issuers. Under the
proposal, a Global Market-listed company that is unsure of its status
could continue to submit an application and request review of its
qualifications at any time during the year through what appears to be a
relatively simple application process, and with no charge or additional
fees imposed by NASDAQ.\16\ While the Commission expects that companies
would monitor their listing qualifications, even a company that
performs little or no such monitoring could obtain a review of its
qualifications from NASDAQ at any time and potentially transfer to the
Global Select tier with apparent ease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the automatic review process was developed at the
inception of the Global Select tier to notify companies about their
eligibility for that tier, which was, at that time, new and unfamiliar
to them. As a result, the Commission notes that the automatic review
process provided a mechanism for NASDAQ to promote, market, and expand
the new Global Select tier to eligible companies. Now that companies
are familiar with this process and also have an easy way to apply
throughout the year, the Commission believes that it is consistent with
the Act, and Section 6(b)(5) in particular, for NASDAQ no longer to
offer this service to promote its Global Select tier. In addition, the
Commission notes that it received no comments on the proposal, and thus
is not aware of any objection to it from

interested parties, in particular, Global Market-listed companies.
Moreover, eliminating the automatic review process, which NASDAQ has
stated is a burden on its staff, could free up additional resources
that may be better used for the regulation and oversight of listed
companies.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\17\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2014-067) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-20465 Filed 8-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 213 (Monday, November 8, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61673-61676]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24447]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0950; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01075-T;
Amendment 39-21803; AD 2021-23-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2021-18-
08, which applied to all Airbus SAS Model A319-171N airplanes; Model
A320-271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes; and Model A321-271N, -272N, -
271NX, and -272NX airplanes. AD 2021-18-08 required repetitive
inspections of the pylon/engine interface rods for damage, and
applicable corrective actions, as specified in European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0177. AD 2021-18-08 also provided for
limited installation of affected parts under certain conditions. Since
the FAA issued AD 2021-18-08, operators reported that the requirements
of EASA AD 2021-0177 were unclear. This AD retains the requirements of
AD 2021-18-08, with clarified instructions, as specified in an EASA AD,
which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 23, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 23,
2021.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by December 23, 2021.

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 https://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 material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD, contact
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email [email protected]; internet www.easa.europa.eu. You
may find this IBR material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material 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>. It is also available in the AD docket at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2021-0950.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0950; 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 AD, the mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments received, and
other information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments
about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0950; Project Identifier MCA-
2021-01075-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, 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 final rule 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
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

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 AD 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 AD, 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 AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Sanjay
Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International
Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax

206-231-3223; email [email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA
receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in
the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2021-18-08, Amendment 39-21709 (86 FR 48296,
August 30, 2021) (AD 2021-18-08), which applied to all Airbus SAS Model
A319-171N airplanes; Model A320-271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes; and
Model A321-271N, -272N, -271NX, and -272NX airplanes. AD 2021-18-08
required repetitive inspections of the pylon/engine interface rods for
damage, and applicable corrective actions, as specified in EASA AD
2021-0177, dated July 23, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0177). AD 2021-18-08 also
provided for limited installation of affected parts under certain
conditions. The FAA issued AD 2021-18-08 to address damage that could
lead to rupture of the rod-eye ends, which could result in fuel and
hydraulic pipe chafing, consequent fuel or hydraulic leakage, and
possible fire.

Actions Since AD 2021-18-08 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2021-18-08, operators reported that the
requirements of EASA AD 2021-0177 were unclear.
    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0177R1, dated September 21,
2021 (EASA AD 2021-0177R1) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct
an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A319-171N, A320-271N,
A320-272N, A320-273N, A321-271N, A321-272N, A321-271NX, and A321-272NX
airplanes. EASA AD 2021-0177R1 revised EASA AD 2021-0177, dated July
23, 2021 (which corresponded to FAA AD 2021-18-08), to clarify the
requirements.
    This AD was prompted by a report of damage found at the rod-eye
ends of two original rods installed to maintain an interface plate
between the pylon and nacelle, and the need to clarify certain existing
requirements. The FAA is issuing this AD to address damage that could
lead to rupture of the rod-eye ends, which could result in fuel and
hydraulic pipe chafing, consequent fuel or hydraulic leakage, and
possible fire. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0177R1 specifies procedures for repetitive detailed
inspections for damage (including hole damage, a crack, or an abnormal
deformation) of the left- and right-hand pylon/engine interface rod
ends of the rod attachment fittings, and the interface plate and upper
support brackets, measurement of the play/gap of the pylon/engine
interface upper and lower rod ends, and applicable corrective actions
including rod replacement. EASA AD 2021-0177R1 also provides for
limited installation of affected parts under certain conditions. 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 the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are 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 described above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining
that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or
develop on other products of these same type designs.

Requirements of This AD

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD
2021-0177R1 described previously, except for any differences identified
as exceptions in the regulatory text of this 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,
EASA AD 2021-0177R1 is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD
requires compliance with EASA AD 2021-0177R1 in its entirety through
that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions
in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same
as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2021-0177R1 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 2021-0177R1. Service information required by EASA AD 2021-
0177R1 for compliance will be available at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0950 after this AD is
published.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD interim action. If final action is later
identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking
comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA
authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days,
upon a finding of good cause.
    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies foregoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because rupture of the rod-eye ends could result in fuel and hydraulic
pipe chafing, consequent fuel or hydraulic leakage, and possible fire.
Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are
impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B).
    In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days,
for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forego notice and
comment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good
cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and
comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt
this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 204 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                     Estimated Costs for Required Actions *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Labor cost                Parts cost           Cost per product           Cost on U.S.  operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 6 work-hours x $85 per hour               $0  Up to $510...................  Up to $104,040.
 = Up to $510.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table does not include estimated costs for reporting.

    The FAA estimates that it takes about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the initial reporting requirement in this AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, the FAA estimates
the cost of reporting the initial inspection results to be $17,340 for
U.S. operators, or $85 per product.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required based on the results of any
required or alternative actions. The FAA has no way of determining the
number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

                                  Estimated Costs of On-Condition Replacements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Labor cost                                      Parts cost      Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 work-hours x $85 per hour = $680........................................                $0               $680
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates that it would take 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the on-condition reporting requirement in this AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, the FAA
estimates the cost of reporting subsequent positive inspection results
to be $85 per product for U.S. operators.
    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the other on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB
Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public
reporting for this collection of information is estimated to take
approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2021-18-08, Amendment 39-21709
(86 FR 48296, August 30, 2021); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

2021-23-05 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-21803; Docket No. FAA-2021-0950;
Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01075-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective November 23,
2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2021-18-08, Amendment 39-21709 (86 FR 48296,
August 30, 2021) (AD 2021-18-08).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A319-171N airplanes;
Model A320-271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes; and Model A321-271N, -
272N, -271NX, and -272NX airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29, Hydraulic
power.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of damage found at the rod-eye
ends of two original rods installed to maintain an interface plate
between the pylon and nacelle, and the need to clarify certain
existing requirements from AD 2021-18-08. The FAA is issuing this AD
to address damage that could lead to rupture of the rod-eye ends,
which could result in fuel and hydraulic pipe chafing, consequent
fuel or hydraulic leakage, and possible fire.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2021-0177R1, dated September 21, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0177R1).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0177R1

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0177R1 refers to ``06 August 2021 [the
effective date of the original issue of this AD],'' this AD requires
using September 14, 2021 (the effective date of AD 2021-18-08).
    (2) Where EASA AD 2021-0177R1 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (3) Paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2021-0177R1 specifies to ``contact
Airbus for approved instructions and, within the compliance time(s)
specified in those instructions, accomplish those instructions
accordingly'' as an alternative corrective action if a defect is
detected during inspection of an updated rod. As of the effective
date of this AD, however, for that alternative, this AD requires
repair of the defect before further flight using a method approved
by the Manager, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization
Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.
    (4) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2021-0177R1 does not
apply to this AD.

(i) Clarification of EASA AD 2021-0177R1

    Paragraph (8) of EASA AD 2021-0177R1 allows installation of an
affected part if it is serviceable and inspected within 750 flight
hours after installation. The Definitions section of EASA AD 2021-
0177R1 requires that a serviceable affected part pass an inspection
before the next flight after installation. Therefore, this AD allows
installation of an affected serviceable part after the effective
date of this AD if it is inspected before further flight after
installation and 750 flight hours thereafter. All other provisions
of paragraph (8) and Note 2 of EASA AD 2021-0177R1 apply to this AD,
including the repetitive inspection of that part as required by
paragraph (1) or (2) of EASA AD 2021-0177R1.

(j) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, 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 Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this
AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
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, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International
Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(l) 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 2021-0177R1,
dated September 21, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2021-0177R1, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer
3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material 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>. This material may be found in the AD
docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2021-0950.
    (5) You may view this material 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: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on October 27, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-24447 Filed 11-4-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P