[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 192 (Friday, October 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 59768]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23637]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2014; FRL-9917-45-ORD]

Notice of Availability of Guidance for Applying Quantitative Data
To Develop Data-Derived Extrapolation Factors for Interspecies and
Intraspecies Extrapolation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of Guidance for
Applying Quantitative Data to Develop Data-Derived Extrapolation
Factors for Interspecies and Intraspecies Extrapolation (DDEF
Guidance). This document lays out methods for calculation of factors
compensating for the application of animal toxicity data to humans
(interspecies) and for compensating for sensitive populations
(intraspecies). The use of data to conduct these extrapolations rather
than rely on default values advances EPA's policy of considering
relevant data first when conducting its chemical assessments.

DATES: The document will be available October 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The Guidance for Applying Quantitative Data to Develop Data-
Derived Extrapolation Factors for Interspecies and Intraspecies
Extrapolation is available at the EPA Web site http://www.epa.gov/raf/DDEF/index.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Dr. Michael Broder, Office of the
Science Advisor, Mail Code 8105R, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number
(202) 564-3393; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Historically, EPA has employed default
uncertainty factors in its computation of toxicity values (e.g.,
reference concentrations [RfC] and reference doses [RfD]) to compensate
for an absence of data. Default uncertainty factors have historically
been based on policy or regulatory positions rather than on empirical
data applicable to the chemical of interest. Among the uncertainty
factors used in EPA assessments are those compensating for a lack of
information on how well animal models used in toxicity studies mimic
humans (interspecies) and differences in response between the majority
of the population (central tendency) compared with the sensitive
individual (intraspecies). With the publication of An Examination of
EPA Risk Assessment Principles and Practices ``Staff Paper'' published
in 2004, and EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published
in 2005, the Agency announced its policy of considering all relevant
data before applying default values.
    In 2011 EPA published Recommended Use of Body Weight\3/4\ as the
Default Method in Derivation of the Oral Reference Dose. In that
guidance EPA listed the optimal approach as using a physiologically-
based pharmacokinetic or other biologically-based model with the
default approach using the ratio of body weights raised to the \3/4\
power.
    The DDEF Guidance lays out a computational process for using
chemical-specific data on toxicokinetics (adsorption, metabolism,
distribution and excretion) and toxicodynamics (response of the tissue
to the active form of the agent).
    It should be noted that the DDEF Guidance is the first EPA product
to provide a method both for quantitative determination of relative
sensitivity of the pharmacodynamic response in an assessment and for
empirical determination of intraspecies sensitivity. As such, this
method provides a valuable tool for identifying and quantifying
sensitive populations and lifestages.

    Dated: August 21, 2014.
Robert Kavlock,
Interim EPA Science Advisor.
[FR Doc. 2014-23637 Filed 10-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 10, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 68429]
[DOCID:fr10no05-95]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP04-14-006]

Saltville Gas Storage Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

November 3, 2005.
    Take notice that on September 30, 2005, Saltville Gas Storage
Company (Saltville) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective
date of September 1, 2005:

First Revised Sheet No. 11
First Revised Sheet No. 12

    Saltville states that the filing is being made in compliance with
the Commission's orders in Saltville Gas Storage Company LLC, 107 FERC
] 61,267 order on reh'g, 109 FERC ] 61,200 (2004), order on compliance,
110 FERC ] 61,318 (2005).
    Saltville states that copies of the filing were mailed to all
customers of Saltville and affected state commissions as well as to all
parties on the official service list in this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on November 10, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6215 Filed 11-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 23)]
[Notices]
[Page 6204-6206]
[DOCID:fr05fe09-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2006-25756]

Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Standards; Volvo Trucks North
America, Renewal of Exemption

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew Volvo Trucks North
America's (Volvo) exemption from the

Agency's requirement that drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs)
possess a commercial driver's license (CDL) issued in the United States
(U.S.). Volvo requested that its exemption for seven Swedish engineers
and technicians be renewed to enable these individuals to continue test
driving CMVs in the U.S. All seven individuals are employees of Volvo
and each holds a valid Swedish CDL. FMCSA believes the knowledge and
skills testing and training program that Swedish drivers must undergo
for a Swedish CDL ensures a level of safety that is equivalent to, or
greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying
with the U.S. requirements for a CDL.

DATES: This exemption will be effective from April 23, 2009 through
April 23, 2011. Comments must be received on or before March 9, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System Number FMCSA-2006-25756, by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the exemption process, see the Public
Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to www.regulations.gov, and follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets, or go to the street address
listed above.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.) You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476) or you may visit http://
DocketInfo.dot.gov.
    Public Participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can get electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site. If you want us to notify
you that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that
appears after submitting comments online. Comments received after the
comment closing date will be included in the docket, and we will
consider late comments to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and
Operations; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA may renew an exemption
for a maximum 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely
achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the
level that would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The procedures
for requesting an exemption (including a renewal) are prescribed in 49
CFR part 381. FMCSA has evaluated Volvo's application for a renewal on
its merits and has decided to grant renewal of the exemption for seven
of Volvo's engineers and technicians for a 2-year period.

Volvo Application for an Exemption Renewal

    Volvo has applied for the renewal of an exemption from the
commercial driver's licensing rules, specifically 49 CFR 383.23, which
establishes licensing requirements for drivers operating CMVs in
interstate commerce. The exemption was originally granted on April 23,
2007 (72 FR 20166). Volvo is seeking a renewal of this exemption
because the drivers it employs are citizens and residents of Sweden,
and as such they cannot apply for a CDL from a State in the U.S. A copy
of the request for a renewal is in the docket identified at the
beginning of this notice.
    The renewal of the exemption will enable these seven drivers to
operate CMVs in the U.S. and continue to support Volvo's field tests to
meet future clean air standards, to test drive prototype vehicles at
their test site, and to deliver the vehicles, if necessary. The drivers
are: Peter Hofsten, Thorbjorn Ohlund, Freddy Blixt, Johnny Adolfsson,
Goran Alsen, Kjell Jansson, and Lars Svensson.
    Together, these drivers comprise a team of designers, currently
employed by Volvo in Sweden, who want to continue driving CMVs in the
U.S., to test and evaluate prototype and production CMVs in order to
design safe and well-tested vehicles for use on U.S. highways. They are
experienced CMV operators with valid Swedish-issued CDLs. It is
estimated that each driver would continue to drive approximately 2,500
miles per year on U.S. roads. Because each of the drivers was required
to satisfy strict regulations in Sweden to obtain a CDL, and has
extensive CMV training and experience, Volvo believes that the renewal
of the exemption will continue to achieve a level of safety equivalent
to the level of safety that would be obtained absent the exemption.

Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety

    Drivers applying to obtain a Swedish CDL must take both a knowledge
test and skills test before a license to operate CMVs is issued. This
process is considered comparable to, or as effective as, the
requirements of 49 CFR part 383 and adequately assesses the driver's
ability to operate CMVs in the U.S.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) and 31136(e), FMCSA
requests public comments on the renewal of Volvo's exemption from the
requirements of 49 CFR 383.23. The Agency requests that interested
parties with specific data concerning the safety records of the drivers
listed in this notice submit comments by March 9, 2009. FMCSA will
review all comments received by this date and determine whether the
renewal of the exemption is consistent with the requirements of 49
U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e). Comments received after the comment closing
date will be filed in the public docket and will be considered to the
extent practicable, but FMCSA may make its final decision at any time
after the close of the comment period.
    FMCSA believes the requirements for a renewal of an exemption under
49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e) can be satisfied by initially granting the
renewal and then requesting and subsequently evaluating comments
submitted by interested parties. As indicated above, the Agency
previously

published a notice of final disposition announcing its decision to
exempt these seven Volvo drivers from the CDL requirement in 49 CFR
383.23. The decision to renew the exemption for these drivers was based
on the merits of each driver's demonstrated knowledge and skills about
the safe operation of CMVs, and only after careful consideration of the
comments submitted in response to the April 23, 2007 original notice.
The notice of application for exemption indicated that detailed
information about the qualifications and experience of each of the
drivers was provided in Volvo's application and that a copy of the
application is in the docket referenced at the beginning of this
notice.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any or all of these drivers are not currently
achieving the requisite statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse information
submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if the continuation of
the exemption is not consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) and
31136(e), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of
the driver(s) in question.

    Issued on: January 29, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-2433 Filed 2-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 180 (Friday, September 16, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57657-57659]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23815]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0360; FRL-8887-5]

Tetrachlorvinphos; Extension of Time-Limited Interim Pesticide
Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an extension of time-limited
interim tolerances for the combined residues of the insecticide
tetrachlorvinphos [(Z)-2-chloro-1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl) vinyl
dimethyl phosphate], including its metabolites, 1-(2,4,5-
trichlorophenyl)-ethanol (free and conjugated forms), 2,4,5-
trichloroacetophenone, and 1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)-ethanediol, in or
on multiple commodities which will be identified later in this
document, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The
time-limited tolerances expire on March 18, 2013.

DATES: This regulation is effective September 16, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 15, 2011,
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-2011-0360. 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 (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carmen Rodia, Registration Division
(7504P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 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:
     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 provides
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 get electronic access to other related information?

    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 40 CFR part 180 through the
Government Printing Office's e-CFR cite at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. How 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. The EPA procedural

regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. 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-2011-0360 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 on or
before November 15, 2011.
    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 your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0360, 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

    A detailed summary of the background related to EPA's proposal to
extend the time-limited interim tolerances for the combined residues of
the insecticide tetrachlorvinphos, including its metabolites, in or on
multiple commodities can be found in the Federal Register of June 8,
2011 (76 FR 33184) (FRL-8874-7), by going to http://www.regulations.gov, and is hereby incorporated by reference. The
referenced document is available in the docket established by this
action, which is described under ADDRESSES. Locate and click on the
hyperlink for docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0360. Double-click on
the document to view the referenced background summary information on
pages 33186-33187. Two anonymous comments were received in response to
the referenced proposal. These comments were non-substantive in nature
and totally unrelated to EPA's proposal.

III. Conclusion

    Therefore, an extension of the time-limited interim tolerances is
established for the combined residues of the insecticide
tetrachlorvinphos [(Z)-2-chloro-1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl) vinyl
dimethyl phosphate], including its metabolites, 1-(2,4,5-
trichlorophenyl)-ethanol (free and conjugated forms), 2,4,5-
trichloroacetophenone, and 1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)-ethanediol, in or
on cattle, fat (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per
se) at 0.2 parts per million (ppm); cattle, kidney (of which no more
than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 1.0 ppm; cattle, liver
(of which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 0.5
ppm; cattle, meat (of which no more than 2.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos
per se) at 2.0 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver at
1.0 ppm; egg (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per
se) at 0.2 ppm; hog, fat (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 0.2 ppm; hog, kidney (of which no more
than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 1.0 ppm; hog, liver (of
which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 0.5 ppm;
hog, meat (of which no more than 2.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se)
at 2.0 ppm; hog, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver at 1.0 ppm;
milk, fat (reflecting negligible residues in whole milk and of which no
more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 0.05 ppm; poultry,
fat (of which no more than 7.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 7.0
ppm; poultry, liver (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 2.0 ppm; poultry, meat (of which no more
than 3.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) at 3.0 ppm; and poultry, meat
byproducts, except liver at 2.0 ppm, for a period of 18 months
following the date of publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. A time-limitation has been imposed in order to provide the
Agency with additional time to complete the reviews of the submitted
livestock Magnitude of Residue (MOR) data, storage stability data, and
the waiver request for the swine MOR data. As a result, these time-
limited interim tolerances will expire on March 18, 2013.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(e) of
FFDCA. 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).
    In addition, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.), the Agency previously assessed whether establishing
tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, raising tolerance levels, or
expanding exemptions might adversely impact small entities and
concluded, as a generic matter, that there is no adverse economic
impact. The factual basis for the Agency's generic certification for
tolerance actions was published on May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950), and was
provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
    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) (Pub. L. 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).

V. 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: September 8, 2011.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    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. Section 180.252 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  180.252  Tetrachlorvinphos; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for the combined residues
of the insecticide tetrachlorvinphos [(Z)-2-chloro-1-(2,4,5-
trichlorophenyl) vinyl dimethyl phosphate], including its metabolites,
1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)-ethanol (free and conjugated forms), 2,4,5-
trichloroacetophenone, and 1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)-ethanediol, in or
on the following commodities:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Parts per
                   Commodity                          million                Expiration/revocation date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is                 0.2  March 18, 2013.
 tetrachlorvinphos per se).
Cattle, kidney (of which no more than 0.05 ppm                1.0  March 18, 2013.
 is tetrachlorvinphos per se).
Cattle, liver (of which no more than 0.05 ppm                 0.5  March 18, 2013.
 is tetrachlorvinphos per se).
Cattle, meat (of which no more than 2.0 ppm is                2.0  March 18, 2013.
 tetrachlorvinphos per se).
Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney and                    1.0  March 18, 2013.
 liver.
Egg (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is                        0.2  March 18, 2013.
 tetrachlorvinphos per se).
Hog, fat (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is                    0.2  March 18, 2013.
 tetrachlorvinphos per se).
Hog, kidney (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is                1.0  March 18, 2013.
 tetrachlorvinphos per se).
Hog, liver (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is                 0.5  March 18, 2013.
 tetrachlorvinphos per se).
Hog, meat (of which no more than 2.0 ppm is                   2.0  March 18, 2013.
 tetrachlorvinphos per se).
Hog, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver..               1.0  March 18, 2013.
Milk, fat (reflecting negligible residues in                 0.05  March 18, 2013.
 whole milk and of which no more than 0.05 ppm
 is tetrachlorvinphos per se).
Poultry, fat (of which no more than 7.0 ppm is                7.0  March 18, 2013.
 tetrachlorvinphos per se).
Poultry, liver (of which no more than 0.05 ppm                2.0  March 18, 2013.
 is tetrachlorvinphos per se).
Poultry, meat (of which no more than 3.0 ppm is               3.0  March 18, 2013.
 tetrachlorvinphos per se).
Poultry, meat byproducts, except liver.........               2.0  March 18, 2013.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2011-23815 Filed 9-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 27879]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09385]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR23-48-000.
    Applicants: Spire Storage Salt Plains LLC.
    Description: Sec.  284.123(g) Rate Filing: Spire Storage Salts
Plains SOC--April 2023 to be effective 4/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/26/23.
    Accession Number: 20230426-5169.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/23.
    Protest Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-710-000.
    Applicants: Northern Border Pipeline Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2023 Operational Purchases and
Sales Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 4/26/23.
    Accession Number: 20230426-5173.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-711-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Rate Schedule S-2 OFO Flow Through
Refund Report April 2023 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 4/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230427-5041.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/9/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-712-000.
    Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: New Service Agreements--
Brotman II to be effective 5/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230427-5085.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/9/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-713-000.
    Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: New NRA-Denbury and Update
Non-Conforming List to be effective 5/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230427-5086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/9/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-714-000.
    Applicants: Rover Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Housekeeping Filing--Remove
Surcharge-Related Language to be effective 5/27/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20230427-5174.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/9/23.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 27, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-09385 Filed 5-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 31 (Thursday, February 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 10128]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03325]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4526-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Delaware; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Delaware (FEMA-4526-DR), dated April 5, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on January 20, 2021.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Janice P.
Barlow, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of MaryAnn Tierney as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

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

Robert J. Fenton,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-03325 Filed 2-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 77939]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31176]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Release Certain Properties From Federal
Obligations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA hereby provides notice of intent to release certain
airport properties on 23.45 acres at the Orlando International Airport,
Orlando, FL from the conditions, reservations, and restrictions as
contained in a Quitclaim Deed agreement between the United States
Government and the City of Orlando, dated September 28, 2000. The
release of property will allow the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority
to dispose of the property for other than aeronautical purposes. The
property is located on the northwest portion of airport property, near
the corner of Avenue C and Binnacle Way in Orange County, Florida. The
parcel is currently designated as non-aeronautical use. The property
will be released of its Federal obligations to swap the land for
another City-owned parcel. The 12.3 acre parcel to be acquired is
located at the corner of Daetwyler Drive and Jetport Drive in Orange
County, Florida. The fair market value of the Binnacle Way parcels has
been determined by appraisal to be $3,115,900. The fair market value of
the Jetport Drive parcel has been determined by appraisal to be
$3,215,000.
    Documents reflecting the Sponsor's request are available, by
appointment only, for inspection at the Orlando International Airport
and the FAA Airports District Office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) requires the
FAA to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment prior to
the ``waiver'' or ``modification'' of a sponsor's Federal obligation to
use certain airport land for non-aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments are due on or before January 13, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review at the Palm Beach
International Airport, and the FAA Airports District Office, 5950
Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822. Written
comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or mailed to:
Rebecca R. Henry, Program Manager, Orlando Airports District Office,
5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca R. Henry, Program Manager,
Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite
400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.

    Issued in Orlando, Florida, on December 2, 2010.
W. Dean Stringer,
Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2010-31176 Filed 12-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 35 (Monday, February 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 9456]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03583]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9923-16-Region 6]

Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petitions for Objection
to State Operating Permits for Luminant Generating Company, LLC Steam
Electric Generating Stations Martin Lake, Monticello, and Big Brown in
Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final action.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 505(b)(2) and 40 CFR
70.8(d), the EPA Administrator signed an Order, dated January 23, 2015,
denying in part three petitions asking the EPA to object to operating
permits issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
to Luminant Generating Company, LLC (Luminant) relating to three coal
fired steam electric generating stations (SES) located in East and
Northeast Texas. Title V operating permit number O53 was issued by the
TCEQ to Luminant for the Martin Lake SES located in Rusk County, Texas.
Title V operating permit number O64 was issued to Luminant for the
Monticello SES located in Titus County, Texas, while title V operating
permit number O65 was issued to Luminant for the Big Brown SES located
in Freestone County, Texas. The EPA's January 23, 2015 Order responds
to the three petitions submitted by the Environmental Integrity Project
(EIP) representing themselves and on behalf of Sierra Club
(collectively, the Petitioners): the petition addressing the Martin
Lake permit was received on February 26, 2014, while the petitions
addressing the Monticello permit and Big Brown permit were both
received on March 4, 2014. Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the Act
provide that a petitioner may ask for judicial review of those portions
of the Orders that deny objections raised in the petitions by the
United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit. Any
petition for review shall be filed within 60 days from the date this
notice appears in the Federal Register, pursuant to section 307(b) of
the Act.

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of the final Orders, the petitions,
and other supporting information at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    For Information: Please contact Brad Toups at<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 6 address, to view
copies of the final Orders, petitions, and other supporting
information. You may view the hard copies Monday through Friday, from
9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. If you wish to
examine these documents, you should make an appointment at least 24
hours before the visiting day. Additionally, the final January 23, 2015
Order is available electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/title5/petitiondb/petitions/luminant_response2014.pdf.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA affords the EPA a 45-day period to
review, and object, as appropriate, to a title V operating permit
proposed by a state permitting authority. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA
authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator, within 60 days
after the expiration of this review period, to object to a title V
operating permit if the EPA has not done so. Petitions must be based
only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable
specificity during the public comment period provided by the state,
unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise
these issues during the comment period or unless the grounds for the
issue arose after this period.
    The EPA received three petitions from the Petitioners, one dated
February 26, 2014 for the Martin Lake permit, and one each dated March
3, 2014 for the Monticello and Big Brown permits, to object to
operating permits issued to Luminant Generating Company, LLC relating
respectively to facilities located in Rusk, Titus, and Freestone
counties, Texas.
    The Order issued on January 23, 2015 responds to claim V.A of the
Martin Lake Petition (pp. 5-9), the Monticello Petition (pp. 5-11) and
the Big Brown Petition (pp. 7-14) raised by EIP, the Sierra Club having
withdrawn all of their objections prior to the issuance of the order.
The EIP requested that the Administrator object to the proposed
operating permits issued by the TCEQ to Luminant on several bases. The
three petitions did not raise identical claims; however, three common
claims are addressed in the issued order. The remaining issues are to
be withdrawn by the petitioner in accordance with a settlement
agreement reached on January 22, 2015 between the Petitioner and the
EPA.
    The claims are described in detail in Section IV of the Order. In
summary, the issues raised are that: (1) the Compliance Assurance
Monitoring (CAM) provisions in the Martin Lake, Monticello and Big
Brown permits do not assure compliance with the applicable particulate
matter (PM) emission limit during periods of startup, shutdown,
maintenance and malfunction; (2) the record supporting the CAM opacity
indicator ranges for PM for Monticello Units 1, 2 and 3 is deficient
and not based on reliable data; and (3) the Big Brown permit must be
revised to ensure that any credible evidence may be used to demonstrate
noncompliance with applicable requirements.
    Due to significant overlap in the issues raised in the Petitions
and the similarity of the relevant permit conditions in each of the
three permits, the EPA is responding to the identified portion of all
three Petitions in this Order on January 23, 2015. The EPA's rationale
for denying the addressed claims is described in the Order.

    Dated: February 9, 2015.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015-03583 Filed 2-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 98 (Friday, May 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31020-31021]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10805]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94921; File No. SR-ICC-2022-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Risk Parameter
Setting and Review Policy

May 16, 2022.

I. Introduction

    On March 22, 2022, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
amend its Risk Parameter Setting and Review Policy (the ``RPSR
Policy''). The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on April 4, 2022.\3\ The Commission did not receive
comments regarding the proposed rule change. For the reasons discussed
below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Risk Parameter
Setting and Review Policy; Exchange Act Release No. 34-94544 (March
29, 2022); 87 FR 19563 (April 4, 2022) (SR-ICC-2022-002)
(``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The RPSR Policy describes ICC's process of setting and reviewing
the risk management model core parameters and the performance of
sensitivity analyses related to certain parameter settings.\4\ Overall,
ICC represents the proposed amendments would be clarifications needed
to address an independent model validation and would not change the
methodology.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The description is substantially excerpted from the Notice,
87 FR at 19563. Capitalized terms not defined herein have the
meanings assigned to them in the RPSR Policy or the ICC Rules, as
applicable.
    \5\ Notice, 87 FR at 19563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would amend Section 1.7, which describes
the parameters associated with the integrated spread response component
of ICC's CDS risk model. The RPSR Policy categorizes these parameters
as Univariate, Multivariate, and Anti-Procyclicality Level Parameters.
The proposed rule change would make amendments to Subsection 1.7.1,
which describes the Univariate Level Parameters.
    As part of these Univariate Level Parameters, ICC derives the end-
of-day

(``EOD'') recovery rate for single name risk factors (meaning each
single name CDS contract).\6\ The proposed rule change would add text
to explain how ICC derives the EOD recovery rate from price quotes
submitted by Clearing Members. For each single name risk factor, the
EOD recovery rate would reflect the smaller of the standard market
convention recovery rate and the minimum submitted EOD bid price
submitted by Clearing Members. The proposed changes would explain that
the EOD recovery rate would be the minimum submitted EOD bid price, and
therefore would deviate from the standard market convention, when the
single name risk factor itself is distressed. The proposed language
would further specify the role of the established EOD recovery rate in
using the ISDA Standard Model for price-to-spread mapping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As explained in ICC's Risk Management Model Description,
every index, sub-index, or underlying single name is deemed a Risk
Factor. See Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Risk
Management Model Description, Exchange Act Release No. 91918 (May
18, 2021), 86 FR 27927 (May 24, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.\7\ For the reasons discussed below, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act \8\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)(B) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of ICC be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions.\10\ Based on its
review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, the
Commission believes the proposed changes to RPSR Policy are consistent
with the promotion of the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement
of transactions at ICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the change should improve the RPSR
Policy by documenting how ICC derives the EOD recovery rate from price
quotes submitted by Clearing Members for Univariate Level Parameters.
The Commission believes that documenting ICC's approach should help to
ensure that ICC derives the EOD recovery rate and related Univariate
Level Parameters in a clear and consistent manner. Because ICC uses the
RPSR Policy to set and review core parameters for ICC's risk management
model, the Commission believes that this improvement to the RPSR should
help to ensure the continued efficacy of the risk management model. An
effective risk management model should help to ensure that ICC collects
sufficient margin, commensurate with the risks presented by the
transactions its clears. The Commission thus believes the proposed rule
change should ultimately help to ensure that ICC collects sufficient
margin, and in doing so should help improve ICC's ability to avoid
losses that could result during periods of market stress. Because such
losses could disrupt ICC's ability to operate and thus promptly and
accurately clear and settle security based swap transactions, the
Commission finds the proposed rule change would promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions,
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)(B)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)(B) requires that ICC establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to, as applicable, cover its credit exposures to its
participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a
minimum is monitored by management on an ongoing basis and is regularly
reviewed, tested, and verified by conducting a sensitivity analysis of
its margin model and a review of its parameters and assumptions for
backtesting on at least a monthly basis, and considering modifications
to ensure the backtesting practices are appropriate for determining the
adequacy of ICC's margin resources.\12\ As discussed above, the
proposed rule change would document how ICC derives the EOD recovery
rate from price quotes submitted by Clearing Members for Univariate
Level Parameters. In doing so, the Commission believes the proposed
rule change would help to ensure that ICC analyzes this particular
aspect of the Univariate Level Parameters, which the RPSR Policy
requires ICC's Risk team to estimate and review, and perform
sensitivity analysis on, at least monthly. Therefore, the Commission
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(6)(vi)(B).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)(B).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act,
and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \14\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)(B) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\16\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICC-2022-002), be, and hereby
is, approved.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \17\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-10805 Filed 5-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 13 (Friday, January 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3017-3018]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1025]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66148; File No. SR-C2-2012-001]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Amend the Fees Schedule

January 13, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 5, 2012, the C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to state that CMI
and FIX connectivity charges will be charged on a per-Login ID basis.
Firms may access C2 via either a CMI Client Application

Server or a FIX Port, depending on how their systems are configured.
Currently, the Exchange assesses a fee for each CMI Client Application
Server or FIX Port. However, a firm may have many users, using
different Login IDs, accessing the same CMI Client Application Server
or FIX Port, allowing the firm to only pay the monthly fee once.
Alternatively, a firm may use the same Login ID to access different CMI
Client Application Servers or FIX Ports, thereby paying multiple times
for the same Login ID.
    On December 20, 2011, the Exchange filed to amend its connectivity
fees (among other fees) in order to recoup some of the costs from
recent investments made to upgrade the CMI Client Application Servers
and FIX Ports.\3\ In that filing, the Exchange amended such
connectivity fees to amounts that kept them equivalent to those offered
on the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''). CBOE,
however, assesses CMI and FIX fees on a per-Login ID basis.\4\ The
Exchange had intended to ensure that C2's CMI and FIX fees were to be
assessed on a per-Login ID basis as well, but inadvertently failed to
make such modifications. Without assessing such fees on a per-Login ID
basis, the situations described above, wherein a firm may have many
users, using different Login IDs, accessing the same CMI Client
Application Server or FIX Port, allowing the firm to only pay the
monthly fee once, and another firm may use the same Login ID to access
different CMI Client Application Servers or FIX Ports, thereby paying
multiple times for the same Login ID, may occur. Further, without
assessing such fees on a per-Login ID basis, the Exchange will not be
able to recoup the costs of the investments to upgrade the CMI Client
Application Servers and FIX Ports. As such, the Exchange now proposes
to assess CMI Client Application Server and FIX Port costs on a per-
Login ID basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66082 (January 3,
2012) (SR-C2-2011-041).
    \4\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, Section 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) \6\
of the Act in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
C2 Trading Permit Holders and other persons using Exchange facilities.
Amending the connectivity fees so that they are assessed on a per-Login
ID basis is reasonable because this will allow the Exchange to recoup
expenditures to upgrade the connectivity equipment, and because this
eliminates circumstances wherein a firm may have many users, using
different Login IDs, accessing the same CMI Client Application Server
or FIX Port, allowing the firm to only pay the monthly fee once, and
another firm may use the same Login ID to access different CMI Client
Application Servers or FIX Ports, thereby paying multiple times for the
same Login ID. Amending the connectivity fees so that they are assessed
on a per-Login ID basis is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because such fees will be assessed equally to all who use the CMI
Client Application Servers or FIX Ports, and because CBOE currently
assesses such connectivity fees on a per-Login ID basis, and in the
same amounts as the C2 connectivity fees.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \7\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, Section 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    C2 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.

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

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

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

    The proposed rule change is designated by the Exchange as
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge, thereby
qualifying for effectiveness on filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act \8\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \9\ thereunder. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-C2-2012-001 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2012-001. 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 Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2012-001 and should be
submitted on or before February 10, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-1025 Filed 1-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 20, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28030-28033]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12613]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0560; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-172-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the
drainage holes on the lower skin panel in the center wing box between
frames (FR) 42 and FR 46. This proposed AD would require repetitive
rotating probe inspections for cracking of the trellis boom drainage
holes, the holes in the stringers bottom, and the holes of the inner
pump, and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 4, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room

W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93
44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0560; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-0560;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-172-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

 Discussion

    Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural
design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage
is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as
a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels.
Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent
frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage
cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with
normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will
grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the
airplane. This condition is known as widespread fatigue damage (WFD).
It is associated with general degradation of large areas of structure
with similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages,
WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is
operated long enough without any intervention.
    The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became
effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to
prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life
of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these
airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and
future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs
establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that
support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the
WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV
is approved.
    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require
identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show
that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane
reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of
future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance
actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness
directives through separate rulemaking actions.
    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to
propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for
their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This
approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides
flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information
development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with
certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
    On April 22, 2011, we issued AD 2011-10-06, Amendment 39-16687 (76
FR 27227, May 11, 2011) (``AD 2011-10-06''), applicable to all Airbus
Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes.
That AD currently requires:
     Cold working of trellis boom drainage holes;
     Repetitive detailed or rotating probe inspections for
cracking in the drainage holes on the lower skin panel in the center
wing box between FR 42 and FR 46, and corrective actions if necessary,
including repair; and
     Repetitive eddy current inspections for cracking of the
upper corner angle fitting and the vertical tee fitting at left and
right FR 40, and corrective actions if necessary, including repair and
replacement of the internal angle fitting.
    AD 2011-10-06 was prompted by European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, AD 2009-0057 to identify and correct an unsafe
condition. The identified unsafe condition is cracking of trellis boom
drainage holes, the holes in the stringers bottom, and the holes of the
inner pump, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
wings.
    Since issuance of AD 2011-10-06, EASA has issued EASA AD 2016-0196,
dated September 30, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304,
-322, -324, and -325 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    DGAC France issued AD F-1992-106-132R7 to require certain
inspections and modifications which addressed JAR/FAR [Joint
Aviation Requirements/Federal Aviation Regulations] 25-571
requirements, related to damage-tolerance and fatigue evaluation of
structure. Following the Extended Design Service Goal activities as
part of the Structure Task Group for the Airbus A310 program, EASA
published AD 2007-0053, which replaced DGAC France AD F-1992-106-
132R7.
    After EASA issued AD 2007-0053R1, the thresholds and the
intervals of Airbus Service Bulletins (SB) A310-57-2050 and A310-57-
2064 were updated, prompting EASA to issue AD 2009-0057 [which
corresponds to FAA AD 2011-10-06] and [EASA] AD 2007-0053 was
revised (R2) accordingly. EASA AD 2009-0057 also required the
accomplishment of the actions specified in Airbus SB A310-57-2048 at
Revision 01.
    After EASA issued AD 2009-0057, in the frame of the Widespread
Fatigue Damage campaign, new analysis has indicated the need for
additional work included in Revision 03 of Airbus SB A310-57-2050.

    For the reason described above, this new [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2009-0057, which is superseded, and requires
inspection and corrective actions as specified in Airbus SB A310-57-
2050 Revision 04.

    Required actions include a repetitive rotating probe inspection for
cracking of certain holes in the stringers bottom, inner pumps, and the
trellis boom; and corrective actions, i.e., repair of holes where
cracks are discovered.
    The compliance times vary depending on airplane configuration. The
earliest initial inspection compliance time is 11,400 total flight
cycles or 57,300 total flight hours, whichever occurs first. The latest
initial compliance time is 38,700 total flight cycles or 77,500 total
flight hours, whichever occurs first. The shortest repetitive interval
is 6,200 flight cycles or 31,200 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0560.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2050, Revision 04,
dated March 13, 2015. This service information describes procedures for
repetitive rotating probe inspections for cracking of the trellis boom
drainage holes, the holes in the stringers bottom, and the holes of the
inner pump, and corrective actions. This service information 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 and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products the same
type design.
    This proposed AD would not supersede AD 2011-10-06. Rather, we have
determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address
the changes in the MCAI. This proposed AD would require repetitive
rotating probe inspections for cracking of the trellis boom drainage
holes, the holes in the stringers bottom, and the holes of the inner
pump, and corrective actions, if necessary. Accomplishment of the
proposed actions would then terminate the actions required by paragraph
(h) of AD 2011-10-06.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
              Action                         Labor cost             Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection........................  84 work-hours x $85 per hour          $5,890         $13,030        $104,240
                                     = $7,140.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2017-0560; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-
172-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 4, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2011-10-06, Amendment 39-16687 (76 FR 27227,
May 11, 2011) (``AD 2011-10-06'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -
304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category,
all serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the drainage
holes on the lower skin panel in the center wing box between frames
(FR) 42 and FR 46. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
cracking of trellis boom drainage holes, the holes in the stringers
bottom, and the holes of the inner pump, which could result in
reduced structural integrity of the wings.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Rotating Probe Inspections and Corrective Actions

    Except as provided by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, before
exceeding the applicable threshold or grace period, whichever occurs
later, as defined in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Airbus
Service Bulletin A310-57-2050, Revision 04, dated March 13, 2015,
accomplish the rotating probe inspection for cracking of the trellis
boom drainage holes, the holes in the stringers bottom, and the
holes of the inner pump, as applicable, and do all applicable
corrective actions, as specified in, and in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2050,
Revision 04, dated March 13, 2015, except as required by paragraph
(h)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before
further flight. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to
exceed those defined in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Airbus
Service Bulletin A310-57-2050, Revision 04, dated March 13, 2015.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information

    (1) Where Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2050, Revision 04,
dated March 13, 2015, specifies a grace period ``after receipt of
the Service Bulletin without exceeding previous Service Bulletin
revision values,'' this AD requires compliance within the specified
grace period after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2050, Revision 04,
dated March 13, 2015, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate
action, and specifies that action as ``RC'' (Required for
Compliance): Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l)(2) of this
AD.

(i) No Terminating Action for Inspections

    Accomplishing corrective actions on an airplane as required by
paragraph (g) or (h)(2) of this AD does not constitute terminating
action for the repetitive actions required by paragraph (g) of this
AD.

(j) Terminating Action

    Accomplishment of the initial inspection required by paragraph
(g) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the actions
required by paragraph (h) of AD 2011-10-06.

(k) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using the service information specified in Airbus
Service Bulletin A310-57-2050, Revision 03, dated December 19, 2014.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Branch, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: Except as required by paragraph
(h)(2) of this AD: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus'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 (h)(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.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0196, dated September 30, 2016, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2017-0560.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 9, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-12613 Filed 6-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P