[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 13, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58562-58563]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26768]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-1075]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Carquinez Strait, at Martinez,
CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Benicia-Martinez Union Pacific
Railroad Drawbridge across the Carquinez Strait, mile 7.0, at Martinez,
CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to replace
drawspan operational components. This deviation allows the bridge to
remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation
period.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on December 20, 2017, to
4 p.m. on January 10, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-1075, is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge
Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Union Pacific Railroad has requested a
temporary change to the operation of the Benicia-Martinez Railroad
Drawbridge across the Carquinez Strait, mile 7.0, at Martinez, CA. The
drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 70 feet
above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw
operates as required by 33 CFR 117.5. Navigation on the waterway is
commercial and recreational.
    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position
from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., December 20, 2017 through December 21, 2017,
December 27, 2017 through December 28, 2017, December 30, 2017, January
3, 2018 through January 5, 2018, and January 8, 2018 through January
10, 2018 to allow the bridge owner to replace the down haul wire ropes
of the drawspan. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the
waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were
raised.

    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may
do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies
and there is no alternative route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard
will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and
Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for
the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: December 7, 2017.
Carl T. Hausner,
District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-26768 Filed 12-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 190 (Thursday, October 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59225-59227]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24933]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1999-5578; FMCSA-1999-5748; FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-
2001-9561; FMCSA-2003-15892; FMCSA-2005-21254; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-
2006-26066; FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2009-0054; FMCSA-
2009-0154; FMCSA-2011-0140; FMCSA-2011-0142; FMCSA-2011-0189; FMCSA-
2013-0027; FMCSA-2013-0029; FMCSA-2013-0030; FMCSA-2013-0165]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
65 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions are effective from the dates
stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before
November 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-1999-
5578; FMCSA-1999-5748; FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2001-9561; FMCSA-2003-
15892; FMCSA-2005-21254; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-
2007-27333; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2009-0054; FMCSA-2009-0154; FMCSA-
2011-0140; FMCSA-2011-0142; FMCSA-2011-0189; FMCSA-2013-0027; FMCSA-
2013-0029; FMCSA-2013-0030; FMCSA-2013-0165], using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     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., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, III, Director,
Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office
hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-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
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 65 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 65 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. Each
individual is identified according to the renewal date.
    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her
person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal,
State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for
two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. The following group(s) of
drivers will receive renewed exemptions effective in the month of
October and are discussed below.
    As of October 3, 2015, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 21 individuals have satisfied the conditions
for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (66 FR
30502; 66 FR 41654; 68 FR 44837; 70 FR 41811; 72 FR 12666; 72 FR 25831;
72 FR 39879; 72 FR 40362; 72 FR 52419; 74 FR 34395;

74 FR 34632; 74 FR 37295; 74 FR 41971; 74 FR 48343; 76 FR 37169; 76 FR
44652; 76 FR 49528; 76 FR 49531; 76 FR 50318; 76 FR 53708; 76 FR 54530;
76 FR 61143; 78 FR 4531; 78 FR 24798; 78 FR 34143; 78 FR 41975; 78 FR
46407; 78 FR 52602; 78 FR 56986; 78 FR 77782; 78 FR 78477; 79 FR
53708):

Rocky B. Bentz (WI)
Edwin L. Bupp (PA)
Shaun E. Burnett (IA)
Kevin W. Cannon (TX)
Daryl Carpenter (MD)
Thomas W. Crouch (IN)
John A. Dilts (WI)
Steven A. Garrity (MA)
Mark E. Gessner (FL)
Michael L. Grogg (VA)
Dennis H. Heller (KS)
Michael L. Martin (OH)
Alex P. Makhanov (WA)
Phillip P. Mazza (WI)
John T. McWilliams (IA)
Jason W. Rupp (PA)
Kirby R. Sands (IA)
Leonard J. Sheehan (WI)
Robert N. Taylor (OR)
Victor H. Vera (TX)
John F. Zalar (NY)

    The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket
Nos. FMCSA-2001-9561; FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2009-
0154; FMCSA-2011-0140; FMCSA-2011-0142; FMCSA-2013-0027; FMCSA-2013-
0029; FMCSA-2013-0030. Their exemptions are effective as of October 3,
2015 and will expire on October 3, 2017.
    As of October 23, 2015, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 9 individuals have satisfied the conditions
for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (78 FR
47818; 78 FR 63307):

Larry E. Blakely (GA)
Britt A. Green (ND)
Arlene S. Kent (NH)
Willie L. Murphy (IN)
Joseph J. Pudlik (IL)
Daniel W. Schafer (PA)
Robert L. Spencer (CT)
Jeffrey R. Swett (SC)
Aaron M. Vernon (OH)

    The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket
Nos. FMCSA-2013-0165. Their exemptions are effective as of October 23,
2015 and will expire on October 23, 2017.
    As of October 24, 2015, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 20 individuals have satisfied the conditions
for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (64 FR
27027; 64 FR 40404; 64 FR 51568; 64 FR 66962; 66 FR 30502; 66 FR 41654;
66 FR 48504; 67 FR 17102; 68 FR 44837; 68 FR 54775; 69 FR 51346; 70 FR
30999; 70 FR 41811; 70 FR 46567; 70 FR 48797; 70 FR 50799; 70 FR 53412;
70 FR 61493; 71 FR 50970; 72 FR 39879; 72 FR 40359; 72 FR 52419; 72 FR
52421; 72 FR 54971; 72 FR 62896; 73 FR 48269; 74 FR 11988; 74 FR 21427;
74 FR 34074; 74 FR 37295; 74 FR 41971; 74 FR 43221; 74 FR 48343; 74 FR
49069; 76 FR 21796; 76 FR 54530; 76 FR 55467; 76 FR 62143; 78 FR
77782):

Calvin D. Atwood (NM)
Gregory W. Babington (MA)
Andrew B. Clayton (TN)
William P. Doolittle (MO)
Steve E. Duran (NM)
Richard L. Gagnebin (KS)
Jonathan M. Gentry (TN)
Vincent E. Hardin (AL)
Benny D. Hatton, Jr. (NY)
Robert W. Healey, Jr. (NJ)
Nathaniel H. Herbert, Jr. (PA)
Thomas W. Markham (MN)
Kevin L. Moody (OH)
Terry W. Moore (LA)
Charles W. Mullenix (GA)
Richard W. O'Neill (WA)
Eligio M. Ramirez (TX)
Garry L. Rogers (CO)
Gary M. Wolff (IL)
John C. Young (VA)

    The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket
No. FMCSA-1999-5578; FMCSA-1999-5748; FMCSA-2001-9561; FMCSA-2005-
21254; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2009-0154. Their
exemptions are effective as of October 24, 2015 and will expire on
October 24, 2017.
    As of October 30, 2015, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 9 individuals have satisfied the conditions
for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (64 FR
68195; 65 FR 20251; 67 FR 17102; 68 FR 52811; 68 FR 61860; 70 FR 61165;
71 FR 63379; 72 FR 1050; 74 FR 49069; 74 FR 53581; 76 FR 64171; 78 FR
68137):

Tracy A. Ammons (NC)
James D. Davis (OH)
Edward J. Genovese (IN)
Dewayne E. Harms (IL)
David F. LeClerc (MN)
Jesse L. Townsend (LA)
Humberto A. Valles (TX)
James A. Welch (NH)
Michael E. Yount (ID)

    The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket
No. FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2003-15892; FMCSA-2006-26066. Their
exemptions are effective as of October 30, 2015 and will expire on
October 30, 2017.
    As of October 31, 2015, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 6 individuals have satisfied the conditions
for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (76 FR
55465; 76 FR 67246; 78 FR 77782):

Darrell G. Anthony (TX)
Stacey J. Buckingham (ID)
James E. Knarr, Sr. (NY)
Harold L. Pearsall (PA)
Phillip M. Pridgen, Sr. (MD)
Gerald D. Stidham (CO)

    The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket
No. FMCSA-2011-0189. Their exemptions are effective as of October 31,
2015 and will expire on October 31, 2017.
    Each of these 65 applicants listed in the groups above has
requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing
that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement
specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is
stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving
with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years
indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
requirements.
    These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each
renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by November 2, 2015.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 65 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each
case and made only after

careful consideration of the comments received to its notices of
applications. The notices of applications stated in detail the
qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant for
an exemption from the vision requirements. That information is
available by consulting the above cited Federal Register publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

Submitting Comments

    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
in the search box insert the docket numbers FMCSA-1999-5578; FMCSA-
1999-5748; FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2001-9561; FMCSA-2003-15892; FMCSA-
2005-21254; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2007-27333;
FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2009-0054; FMCSA-2009-0154; FMCSA-2011-0140;
FMCSA-2011-0142; FMCSA-2011-0189; FMCSA-2013-0027; FMCSA-2013-0029;
FMCSA-2013-0030; FMCSA-2013-0165 and click the search button. When the
new screen appears, click on the blue ``Comment Now!'' button on the
right hand side of the page. On the new page, enter information
required including the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of
the comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket number
FMCSA-1999-5578; FMCSA-1999-5748; FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2001-9561;
FMCSA-2003-15892; FMCSA-2005-21254; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2006-26066;
FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2009-0054; FMCSA-2009-0154;
FMCSA-2011-0140; FMCSA-2011-0142; FMCSA-2011-0189; FMCSA-2013-0027;
FMCSA-2013-0029; FMCSA-2013-0030; FMCSA-2013-0165 and click ``Search.''
Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' and you will find all documents and
comments related to the proposed rulemaking.

    Issued on: September 14, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-24933 Filed 9-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


FILE NAME: company. wpt ( 1/ 1/ 2005) ( xml) Template Number P25 ATTENTION:

All commodity terms must comply with the Food and Feed Commodity Vocabulary database ( http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ foodfeed/).

All text in blue font ( instructions for preparing the document), should be removed prior to sending the document to the Federal Register Staff. Instructional text and prompts in green font should also be removed.

COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE ( 1/ 1/ 2005)

EPA Registration Division contact: [ Tony Kish, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. Washington, DC 20460  0001; Telephone number: ( 703) 308  9943; e mail address: giles parker. cynthia@ epa. gov.]

INSTRUCTIONS: Please utilize this outline in preparing tolerance petition documents. In cases where the outline element does not apply please insert " NA Remove" and maintain the outline. The comment notes that appear on the left margin represent hidden typesetting codes designed to expedite the processing of the Federal Register document. Please do not remove or alter these comment notes or change the margins, font, or format in your document. Simply replace the instructions that appear in italics and brackets, i. e., "[ insert company name]," with the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

[ BASF Corporation]

[ Insert petition number]

EPA has received a pesticide petition ([ insert petition number]) from [ BASF Corporation], [ Research Triangle Park, NC 27709] proposing, pursuant to section 408( d) of 2 the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of [ Boscalid ( BAS 510F); [ 3 pyridinecarboxamide, 2 chloro N( 4' chloro( 1,1' biphenyl) 2 yl]] in or on the raw agricultural commodity for increasing the tolerance for [ strawberry] at [ 4.0] parts per million ( ppm) and for increasing the tolerance for [ Berries, crop group 13,] to [ 8.0] parts per million ( ppm). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant metabolism. [ Nature of the residue studies ( OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 860.1300) were conducted in grapes, lettuce and beans as representative crops in order to characterize the fate of boscalid ( BAS 510F) in all crop matrices. In all three crops the boscalid ( BAS 510F) Residues of Concern ( ROC) were characterized as parent boscalid ( BAS 510F). A confined rotational crop study also determined that parent was the residue of concern in the representative crops of radish, lettuce and wheat.]

2. Analytical method. [ In plants the parent residue is extracted using an aqueous organic solvent mixture followed by liquid/ liquid partitioning and a column clean up. Quantitation is by gas chromatography using mass spectrometry ( GC/ MS). In livestock the residues are extracted with methanol. The extract is treated with enzymes in order to release the conjugated glucuronic acid metabolite. The residues are then isolated by liquid/ liquid partition followed by column chromatography. The hydroxylated metabolite is acetylated followed by a column clean up. The parent and acetylated metabolite are quantitated by gas chromatography with electron capture detection.]

3. Magnitude of residues. [ Residue levels of boscalid ( BAS 510F) were determined in Stone Fruits ( peach, cherry, and plum) and Pome Fruits ( apples and pears) samples treated post harvest with one application of BAS 516F ( a mixture of BAS 500F and BAS 510F). Field trials were carried out in order to determine the magnitude of the residue in/ on Belgian Endives. Field trials were conducted in the United States in the required regions for Belgian Endives. The number and locations of field trials and post harvest treatments are in accordance with OPPTS Guideline 860.1500.

Field trials and post harvest treatments were carried out using the maximum label rate, the maximum number of applications, and the minimum pre harvest interval for each crop or crop group.]

B. Toxicological Profile 3 1. Acute toxicity. [ Based on available acute toxicity data BAS 510F and its formulated products do not pose acute toxicity risks. The acute toxicity studies place technical Boscalid ( BAS 510F) in toxicity category IV for acute oral; category III for acute dermal and category IV for acute inhalation. BAS 510F is category IV for both eye and skin irritation, and it is not a dermal sensitizer. For Belgian Endives, the formulated end use product proposed is as follows: a water dispersible granule ( WG) termed Pristine ® ( BAS 516 02/ 04F) containing a 2: 1 mixture of boscalid ( BAS 510F) and pyraclostrobin ( BAS 500F). BAS 516 02F has an acute oral toxicity category of III, acute dermal of category III, acute inhalation of category IV, eye irritation of category III, skin irritation of category IV, and is not a dermal sensitizer.

For Pome Fruits ( Crop Group 11) and Stone Fruits ( Crop Group 12), the product proposed is BAS 516F 510F containing boscalid ( BAS 510F) and pyraclostrobin ( BAS 500F). BAS 516F has an acute oral toxicity category of III, acute dermal of category III, acute inhalation of category IV, eye irritation of category III, skin irritation of category IV, and is not a dermal sensitizer.]

2. Genotoxicty. [ Ames Test ( 1 Study; gene point mutation): Negative; In Vitro CHO/ HGPRT Locus Mammalian Cell Mutation Assay ( 1 Study; point gene mutation): Negative; In Vitro V79 Cell Cytogenetic Assay ( 1 Study; Chromosome Damage): Negative; In Vivo Mouse Micronucleus ( 1 Study; Chromosome Damage): Negative; In Vitro Rat Hepatocyte ( 1 Study; DNA damage and repair): Negative. BAS 510F has been tested in a total of 5 genetic toxicology assays consisting of in vitro and in vivo studies. It can be stated that BAS 510F did not show any mutagenic, clastogenic or other genotoxic activity when tested under the conditions of the studies mentioned above. Therefore, BAS 510F does not pose a genotoxic hazard to humans.]

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [ The reproductive and developmental toxicity of BAS 510F was investigated in a two generation rat reproduction study as well as in rat and rabbit teratology studies. There were no adverse effects on reproduction in the two generation study at any dose tested. The reproductive NOAEL is 10,000 ppm ( 1165 and 1181 for males and females, respectively), the highest dose tested. Pup effects were observed, at the highest dose tested only. In males of the F1 generation, reduced body weight and reduced body weight gain were observed at 10,000 ppm. Additionally, hepatocyte degeneration was observed in males in animals of both the F0 and F1 generations at 10,000 ppm. The parental systemic NOAEL is 1000 and 10,000 ( 113 and 1181 mg/ kg b. w./ day) for males and females, respectively. Toxicity to the offspring was seen at 1,000 ppm in the form of decreased pup weights in the F2 males, and at 10,000 ppm in the form of decreased pup weights for both males and females of both the F1 and F2 generations. The offspring NOAEL is 100 and 1000 ppm ( 12 and 116 mg/ kg b. w./ day) for males and females, respectively. 4 The Agency concluded that there are no residual uncertainties for pre and postnatal toxicity as the degree of concern is low for the susceptibility seen in the above studies, and the dose and endpoints selected for the overall risk assessments will address the concerns for the body weight effects seen in the offspring. Although the dose selected for overall risk assessments ( 21.8 mg/ kg b. w./ day) is higher than the NOAELs in the 2 generation reproduction study ( 10.1 mg/ kg b. w./ day) and the developmental neurotoxicity study ( 14 mg/ kg b. w./ day), these differences are considered to be an artifact of the dose selection process in these studies. For example, there is a 10 fold difference between the LOAEL. ( 106.8 mg/ kg b. w./ day) and the NOAEL ( 10.1 mg/ kg b. w./ day) in the two generation reproduction study. A similar pattern was seen with regard to the developmental neurotoxicity study, where there is also a 10 fold difference between the LOAEL ( 147 mg/ kg b. w./ day) and the NOAEL ( 14 mg/ kg b. w./ day). There is only a 2 3 fold difference between the LOAEL ( 57 mg/ kg b. w./ day) and the NOAEL ( 21.8 mg/ kg b. w./ day) in the critical study used for risk assessment. Because the gap between the NOAEL and LOAEL in the 2 generation reproduction and developmental neurotoxicity studies was large and the effects at the LOAELs were minimal, the true no observedadverse effect level was probably considerably higher. Therefore, the selection of the NOAEL of 21.8 mg/ kg b. w./ day from the 1 year dog study is conservative and appropriate for the overall risk assessments. In addition, the endpoints for risk assessment are based on thyroid effects seen in multiple species ( mice, rats and dogs) and after various exposure durations ( subchronic and chronic exposures) which were not observed at the LOAELs in either the 2 generation reproduction or the developmental neurotoxicity studies. Based on these data, the Agency concluded that there are no residual uncertainties for pre and post natal toxicity.

No teratogenic effects were noted in either the rat or rabbit developmental studies. In the rat study, evidence of maternal or developmental toxicity was not observed at any dose ( highest dose tested of 1,000 mg/ kg b. w./ day). Neither a maternal nor developmental LOAEL were found since the highest dose tested was the NOAEL in both studies. In the rabbit teratology study, maternal toxicity observed at the mid dose of 300 milligrams/ kilogram of body weight ( mg/ kg b. w./ day) consisted of discolored/ reduced feces in one dam and an abortion in one dam. This finding is not necessarily indicative of a definitive test substance related adverse effect. The dam which displayed the fecal alterations and abortion also displayed decreased body weight and body weight gain  compared to the group mean during gestation. These decreases occurred even prior to compound administration. Food consumption was also dramatically decreased in this dam compared to the other animals in the group. Every day from gestation day ( GD) 1  12, this dam had food consumption values which were less than half the mean for the group ( compound administration began on GD 7). From GD 13 to 26 ( when the animal aborted and was sacrificed) this dam ate essentially nothing ( food consumption during this time period was less than or equal to 1.5 grams food/ day). These decreases in body weight, body weight gain, and food consumption, prior to compound administration, all 5 indicate an animal in poor health and this poor state of health, rather than compound exposure, was likely the reason for the fecal alterations and abortion.

At the high dose of 1,000 mg/ kg b. w./ day a maternal body weight gain decrease compared to controls of 81% was observed during the treatment period. Reduced food consumption, reduced body weight and abortions in three dams, were also seen at 1,000 mg/ kg b. w./ day. Evidence of developmental toxicity was not seen at any dose tested.

Developmental neurotoxicity was not observed at any dose in the developmental neurotoxicity study. No maternal toxic effects were noted at any dose in this study. No developmental toxicity was seen at the low dose of 12 mg/ kg b. w./ day ( 100 ppm). Reduced body weights and body weight gains were seen at 118 mg/ kg b. w./ day ( 1,000 ppm) during post natal day ( PND) 1  4. Reduced body weights and body weight gains were seen at 1,183 mg/ kg b. w./ day ( 10,000 ppm) as well as decreased absolute pup brain weight at day PND 11 ( both sexes) and decreased brain length ( males only) at PND. The reduced pup brain weights and decreased brain length go hand in hand and both are due to the decreased pup weights seen at this dose. In this respect, it should be noted that pup brain weights relative to body weight at PND 11 were not significantly different from controls at this dose. Though no maternal toxicity was seen in this study, other studies using similar doses of BAS 510F resulted in maternal toxicity. A dose of 118 mg/ kg b. w./ day in female rats of the same strain in the multigeneration study, resulted in an increased incidence of hepatic centrilobular hypertrophy  a parameter which could not have been detected in the developmental neurotoxicity ( DNT) study as liver histopathology on parental animals was not performed in the DNT study .]

4. Subchronic toxicity. [ The subchronic toxicity of BAS 510F was investigated in a 90  day feeding studies with rats, mice and dogs, and in a 28  day dermal administration study in rats. Additonally a 90  day neurotoxicity study in rats was performed. Generally, mild toxicity was observed. At high dose levels ( doses above the LOAELs) in feeding studies, all three species displayed alterations in various clinical chemistry parameters. These clinical chemistry alterations were likely secondary to general toxicity. Statistically significant increased absolute and relative thyroid weights were observed in male rats only at doses at and above the LOAEL. Increased absolute and relative liver weights were observed in both sexes at doses above the LOAEL in rats and dogs. Increased absolute and relative liver weights were seen in both sexes of the mouse at lower doses. However, the increases in liver weights at these lower doses in the mouse were not deemed to be compound related due to the unusually low concurrent control liver weight values. At doses above the LOAELs, liver weight increases were supported by histopathology alterations in the rat and mouse, but not in the dog. Overall, only mild toxicity was observed in oral subchronic testing.

In the 28  day repeat dose dermal study, no systemic effects were noted up to the highest dose tested of 1,000 mg/ kg b. w./ day. 6 In a 90  day rat neurotoxicity study, there was no mortality, signs of clinical toxicity, or adverse effects on food consumption or body weight at any dose level in either sex. No signs of neurotoxicity were observed during clinical observations, functional observation batteries, motor activity measurements of neuropathology. Therefore, there were no selective neurotoxic effects. Adverse effects were not seen even at the highest dose level tested. A LOAEL was not found and the NOAEL is the highest tested of 15,000 ppm ( 1,050 mg/ kg b. w./ day in males; 1,272 mg/ kg b. w./ day in females).]

5. Chronic toxicity. [ Based on review of the available data, the Reference Dose ( RfD) for BAS 510F will be based on a 1 year feeding study in dogs with a NOAEL of 21.8 mg/ kg b. w./ day. Using an uncertainty factor of 100, the RfD is calculated to be 0.218 mg/ kg b. w./ day. The following are summaries of chronic toxicity studies submitted to EPA.

The chronic toxicity/ oncogenicity studies with BAS 510F include a 12  month feeding study with Beagle dogs, an 18  month B63CF1 mouse feeding study, a 24  month Wistar rat chronic feeding study and a 24  month Wistar rat oncogenicity study.

At the highest dose tested in dogs, effects observed consisted primarily of increased liver and thyroid weights and some serum clinical chemistry changes. The NOAEL was 800 ppm ( 21.8 mg/ kg b. w./ day males; 22.1 mg/ kg b. w./ day females).

Decreased body weights were seen in males in the mouse chronic study at doses of 8000 ppm ( 1804 mg/ kg b. w./ day) and above. Decreased female body weight was seen at doses of 2,000 ppm ( 331 mg/ kg b. w./ day) and above. The target organ in this study was the liver. The NOAEL was 65 and 443 mg/ kg b. w./ day ( 8000 and 2000 ppm) for male and female mice, respectively. In both the rat chronic and oncogenicity studies, the highest dose tested of 15,000 ppm exceeded a maximum tolerated dose ( MTD) and was discontinued after 17 months. Effects observed at the next highest dose of 2,500 ppm primarily centered around the thyroid and liver. The NOAEL was 23 and 30 mg/ kg b. w./ day ( 2500 ppm) for male and female rats, respectively.

Overall, mild toxicity was observed with chronic exposure to BAS 510F. No evidence of treatment induced oncogenicity was observed in the mouse or dog studies. A slight increase in thyroid follicular cell adenomas was seen in both sexes at the high dose when the data from both rat bioassays are combined.

A mode of action ( MOA) for the thyroid follicular cell adenomas has been proposed. This MOA is based on the EPA publication `` Assessment of Thyroid Follicular Cell Tumors," March 1998, EPA/ 630/ R  97/ 002. This document describes the criteria which must be met in order for a compound to be considered under the MOA described in that publication. BASF Corporation believes that BAS 510F has met the cited criteria. 7 Threshold effects. Based on a review of the available chronic toxicity data, BASF believes EPA will establish the RfD for BAS 510F at 0.281 mg/ kg b. w./ day. This RfD for BAS 510F is based on the 2  year chronic and 2  year oncogenicity studies in rats and the 1 year dog study with a the lowest threshold NOAEL of 21.8 mg/ kg b. w./ day for males. Using an uncertainty factor of 100, the RfD is calculated to be 0.218 mg/ kg b. w./ day. Based on the acute toxicity data, BASF believes that BAS 510F does not pose any acute dietary risks.

BAS 510F was shown to be noncarcinogenic in mice and dogs. There was a slight increase in thyroid follicular cell ademonas at the high dose in both sexes in the rat. A threshold based MOA for these tumors based on the EPA publication `` Assessment of Thyroid Follicular Cell Tumors'' ( EPA/ 630/ R  97/ 002, March, 1998), has been proposed. BASF believes the data to support this proposed mode of action are strong, and that the thyroid tumors seen in the rat following BAS 510F exposure have a threshold. In addition, a battery of genotoxicity studies demonstrated that BAS 510F has no genotoxic or clastogenic potential. Therefore, BASF believes that the threshold approach to regulating BAS 510F is appropriate. Also, it should be noted that, while the Agency has in the past considered tumors of this type to be potential human carcinogens, the European Union has published a policy which considers these tumor types, when they occur at low incidence rates in the rat, to not be relevant to man. ( The publication: European Commission, European Chemicals Bureau, ECBI/ 49/ 99   Add. 1 Rev. 2; `` Draft Summary Record, Commission Group of Specialized Experts in the fields of Carcinogenicity, Mutagenicity and Reprotoxicity'' Meeting at Arona, 1  2 September 1999). Therefore, BASF believes that these tumors are not likely relevant to humans and, if these tumors are to be considered relevant to humans, the threshold approach to cancer risk assessment is appropriate.]

6. Animal metabolism. [ In the rat, the predominant route of excretion of BAS 510F is fecal with urinary excretion being minor. The half life of BAS 510F is less than 24 hours. Saturation of absorption appears to be occurring at the high dose level. BAS 510F is rapidly and intensively metabolized to a large number of biotransformation products. The hydroxylation of the diphenyl moiety was the quantitatively most important pathway. Second most important was the substitution of the Cl of the 2 chloropyridine part against SH by conjugation with glutathione. No major differences were observed. In hens and goats the residues of concern were determined to be parent, the hydroxylated metabolite M510 F01 ( 2 chloro N( 4' chloro 5 hydroxy biphenyl 2 yl) nicotinamide), and the glucuronic acid of the metabolite M510 F02.]

7. Metabolite toxicology. [ No additional studies were required for metabolite toxicology.]

8. Endocrine disruption. [ No specific tests have been conducted with BAS 510F to 8 determine whether the chemical may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen or other endocrine effects. However, there were no significant findings in other relevant toxicity studies ( i. e., subchronic and chronic toxicity, teratology and multi generation reproductive studies) which would suggest that BAS 510F produces endocrine related effects.]

C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure. [ An assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential risk due to chronic dietary exposure of the U. S. population and sub populations to residues of Boscalid. Tolerance values for boscalid ( BAS 510F) have previously been established and are listed in U. S. 40 CFR § 180.589.

This analysis included all crops with established boscalid tolerance values, crops pending tolerance assignment ( vegetable, leafy group 4 at 50 ppm; almond hulls 15 ppm; banana pulp 0.05; Belgian Endive 12 ppm); and an increase in tolerance for post harvest stone fruit, crop group 12 at 9.0 ppm and post harvest pome fruit, crop group 11 at 8.0 ppm, strawberry at 4.0 and berries, crop group 13 at 8.0.]

i. Food. [ Acute Dietary Exposure Assessment An acute assessment was not needed since the U. S. EPA Toxicological Endpoint Selection ( TES) Committees had previously evaluated the Boscalid toxicity data and determined there were no toxic effects attributable to a single dose. Therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessment were not required. Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment A Tier 1 chronic dietary exposure assessment was conducted assuming tolerance level residues, default processing factors, 100% crop treated factors for all crops and consumption data from the USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals ( CSFII 1994  1996, 1998) and the EPA Food Commodity Ingredient Database ( FCID) using Exponent's Dietary Exposure Evaluation Module ( DEEM FCID) software. Residues in animal commodities ( i. e. meat, meat byproducts, fat, milk, eggs) were included at the tolerance levels currently established and listed in U. S. 40 CFR § 180.589. Water consumption ( direct and indirect) was also included in the assessment using a chronic drinking water concentration of 26 ug/ L ( ppb).

Dietary exposure estimates were compared against the established Boscalid chronic Population Adjusted Dose ( cPAD) of 0.218 mg/ kg b. w./ day for all populations. Results of the chronic dietary assessments are listed in the table below. The estimated chronic dietary exposure from crops and animal commodities was less than 59 % of the cPAD for all subpopulations. Additional refinements such as the use of anticipated residues and adjusted crop treated factors would further reduce the estimated chronic dietary exposure. The results in Table 1 demonstrate there are no safety concerns for any 9 subpopulation based on established and new uses, and the results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable certainty of no harm.]

Table 1. Summary of Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment Considering Crops with Established and Proposed Tolerances for Boscalid and Water Consumption ( direct and indirect) Population Subgroups Exposure Estimate ( mg/ kg b. w./ day) % cPAD U. S. Population 0.028363 13.01 All Infants 0.089961 41.27 Children 1 2 years 0.127038 58.27 Children 3 5 years 0.083722 38.40 Children 6 12 years 0.036814 16.89 Youth 13 19 years 0.018289 8.39 Females 13 49 years 0.018277 8.38 Adults 20 49 years 0.020717 9.50 Adults 50+ years 0.018988 8.71 % cPAD = percent of chronic population adjusted dose Exposure estimates based on tolerance values, default processing factors, and 100% CT for all crops/ commodities. Drinking water concentration of 26 ppb used in the assessment.

ii. Drinking water. [ Based on PRZM/ EXAMS and SCI GROW models, the estimated drinking water exposure concentrations of boscalid for chronic exposure were 26 ppb for surface water and 0.63 ppb for ground water. These drinking water concentrations were included used with the direct and indirect water consumption and included in the food exposure shown in the Table 1 above.

Acute Aggregate Exposure and Risk ( Food and water) Since the U. S. EPA Toxicological Endpoint Selection ( TES) Committees has evaluated the Boscalid toxicity data and determined there was no toxicological endpoints for acute dietary exposure, the determination of an acute aggregate exposure and risk evaluation was not required.

Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk ( food and water) Using the exposure assumptions described in this notice of filing, BASF has concluded that exposure from food and water will utilize 13% of the cPAD for the U. S. population, 41% of the cPAD for all infants (< 1 year old), and 58% of the cPAD for children 1 2 years old. The results demonstrate that there are no safety concerns for any subpopulation based on established and new uses, and that the results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable certainty of no harm. 10 In summary, we can conclude with reasonable certainty that no harm will occur from chronic aggregate exposure of Boscalid.

Short and Intermediate Term Aggregate Exposure and Risk ( Food, Water and Residential Exposure) Short and intermediate term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure from food and water. Residential exposure is used to refer to nonoccupational and non dietary exposure. No new residential uses are currently being registered for boscalid that would increase non dietary exposure. The residential exposure value used in this risk assessment was previously determined by the EPA ( Federal Register, Volume 68, No 146, July 30, 2003) and considers dermal exposure to adults from the golf course use. The exposure calculated is considered to be representative for youth playing golf because youth and adults possess similar body surface area to weight rations and because the dietary exposure for youth ( 13 19 years old) is less than that of the general US population. The calculated exposure from golf course use is 0.0008 mg/ kg bw/ day. The aggregate short and intermediate term exposure included chronic food exposure, chronic water exposure, and golf course use exposure. The aggregate exposure was 0.029163 mg/ kg bw/ day. This exposure value was compared the cPAD to derived a % cPAD ultilization. The short and intermediate term exposure will utilize only 13.4 % of the cPAD for the U. S. population. The results demonstrate that there are no safety concerns for any subpopulation based on established and new uses, and that the results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable certainty of no harm. In summary, we can conclude with reasonable certainty that no harm will occur from short and intermediate term aggregate exposure of Boscalid.]

2. Non dietary exposure. [ No new residential uses are currently being registered for boscalid that would increase non dietary exposure. A non occupational dermal postapplication exposure/ risk assessment for individuals golfing and harvesting fruit at " UPick farms and orchards was previously conducted by EPA ( Federal Register, Volume 68, No 146, July 30, 2003). Because U Pick is a one time event ( duration < 1 day) and the EPA found that the oral studies indicated there were no endpoints appropriate to quantitate acute risk. Therefore, only the golfing scenario was evaluated with respect to nonoccupational non dietary exposure. The dermal MOE's for adults playing golf were 27,000   74,000. Although specific MOE's were not calculated for youths playing golf, the adult MOEs are considered representative since the body surface area to weight ratios for adolescents do not vary significantly from those of adults.]

D. Cumulative Effects [ Section 408( b)( 2)( D)( v) 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". BAS 510F is a foliar fungicide chemically belonging to the carboxin class of fungicides. BAS 510F acts in the fungal cell by inhibiting 11 mitochondrial respiration through inhibition of the succinate ubiquinone oxidase reductase system in Complex II of the mitochondrial electron transport chain. BAS 510F shares this mode of action with only one other currently registered U. S. pesticide  carboxin.

The EPA is currently developing methodology to perform cumulative risk assessments. At this time, there is no available data to determine whether BAS 510F has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, BAS 510F does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances.]

E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population. [ Using the conservative exposure assumptions described above and based on the completeness and the reliability of the toxicity data, BASF has estimated that dietary exposure ( food and water) to BAS 510F will utilize 13% of the cPAD for the U. S. population. The aggregate exposure including food, water, and residential ( golf) exposure to boscalid will utilize 13.4% of the cPAD. BASF concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the aggregate exposure to residues of BAS 510F, including anticipated dietary and drinking water exposures and golf course use exposures.]

2. Infants and children. [ Using the conservative exposure assumptions described above and based on the completeness and the reliability of the toxicity data, BASF has estimated that dietary exposure ( food and water) to BAS 510F will utilize 58 % of the cPAD for children subgroup ( children 1 2 years of age) and 41% of the cPAD for infants (< 1 year old). BASF concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to infants or children will result from the aggregate exposure to residues of BAS 510F, including anticipated dietary and drinking water exposures and non occupational exposures.]

F. International Tolerances [ A maximum residue level ( MRL) has not been established for Boscalid ( BAS 510F) in any crop by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.]


[Federal Register: December 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 71213-71215]
[DOCID:fr08de06-144]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54857; File No. SR-NASD-2006-101]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment
No. 1 Thereto To Provide for the Payment of a $200 Honorarium Per Case
for Each Arbitrator Who Considers Contested Motions for the Issuance of
Subpoenas

December 1, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 23, 2006, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by NASD. On November 13,
2006, NASD filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, NASD clarified provisions to the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASD is proposing to provide for the payment of a $200 honorarium
per case for each arbitrator who considers contested motions for the
issuance of subpoenas. Below is the text of the proposed rule
change.\4\ Proposed new language is in italics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ If the Commission approves the pending revisions to the NASD
Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes, the rules
proposed in this filing will be renumbered as appropriate; see
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51856 (June 15, 2005) (SR-NASD-
2003-158), 70 FR 36442 (June 23, 2005); and the NASD Code of
Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes; see Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 51857 (June 15, 2005) (SR-NASD-2004-011), 70 FR
36430 (June 23, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

IM-10104. Arbitrators' Honorarium

    (a)-(e) No change
    (f) Payment for Deciding Contested Subpoena Requests Without a
Hearing Session
    (1) The honorarium for deciding one or more contested motions
requesting the issuance of a subpoena without a hearing session shall
be $200. The

honorarium shall be paid on a per case basis to each arbitrator who
decides the contested motion(s). The parties shall not be assessed more
than $600 in fees under this paragraph in any arbitration proceeding.
The honorarium shall not be paid for cases administered under Rules
10203 or 10302.
    (2) For purposes of paragraph (f)(1), a contested motion requesting
the issuance of a subpoena shall include a motion requesting the
issuance of a subpoena, the draft subpoena, a written objection from
the party opposing the issuance of the subpoena, and any other
documents supporting a party's position.
    (3) The panel will allocate the cost of the honorarium under
paragraph (f)(1) to the parties pursuant to Rules 10205(c) and
10332(c).
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to provide for the
payment of a $200 honorarium per case for each arbitrator who considers
contested motions for the issuance of subpoenas. Last year, NASD
amended IM-10104 of the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure (``Code''),
to provide arbitrators with an honorarium of $200 to decide discovery-
related motions without a hearing session.\5\ The revised rule,
however, does not address whether a contested motion concerning a
subpoena constitutes a discovery-related motion. As a result, NASD has
received questions regarding the appropriate payment, if any, for
arbitrators who decide subpoena issues. These questions have focused on
whether, under the rule, arbitrators should be paid to decide contested
motions requesting the issuance of a subpoena.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51931 (June 28,
2005) (File No. SR-NASD-2005-052), 70 FR 38989 (July 6, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The issue of whether arbitrators should receive an honorarium for
deciding contested subpoena motions will become even more significant
if the Commission approves amendments to Rule 10322 as proposed by
NASD.\6\ The proposed changes to Rule 10322 would permit only
arbitrators to issue subpoenas in arbitration disputes.\7\ If the
proposed changes to Rule 10322 are approved by the Commission,
attorneys would no longer have the authority to issue subpoenas. NASD
anticipates that this would result in a significant increase in the
number of subpoena requests considered by arbitrators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54134 (July 12,
2006) (File No. SR-NASD-2005-079), 71 FR 40762 (July 18, 2006).
    \7\ Currently, Rule 10322 allows arbitrators and any counsel of
record to the proceedings to issue subpoenas as provided by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD recognizes that arbitrators may spend a considerable amount of
time and effort deciding contested subpoena motions and believes that
arbitrators should be compensated for this work. Therefore, NASD
proposes to provide a $200 honorarium to each arbitrator who decides
contested motions for subpoenas.\8\ NASD anticipates that if its
proposed changes to Rule 10322 are approved, under most circumstances,
the chairperson will be the only arbitrator considering subpoena
requests based on the documents supplied by the parties. If the entire
panel decides a contested motion, each arbitrator who participates in
the subpoena ruling will receive an honorarium of $200. The $200
honorarium paid to an arbitrator would provide payment for all
contested subpoena motions in a case (i.e., the honorarium would be
paid on a per case basis, regardless of the number of contested
subpoena motions considered by an arbitrator or panel during the
case).\9\ Furthermore, the maximum amount that would be paid by the
parties, collectively, for any one case would be $600, irrespective of
any changes to the composition of the panel.\10\ NASD believes that
structuring the honorarium in this manner will limit the arbitration
costs for parties while at the same time compensating arbitrators for
the time that they spend considering contested subpoena requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For purposes of this rule, a contested motion is defined as
a motion to issue a subpoena, the draft subpoena, a written
objection from the party opposing the issuance of the subpoena, and
any other documents supporting a party's position. Arbitrators will
not be entitled to receive the honorarium if a motion for a subpoena
is uncontested.
    \9\ This differs from other discovery-related motions, for which
an arbitrator receives an honorarium for each motion considered. See
IM-10104(e). If the panel has received the honorarium for
considering a contested subpoena request and subsequently receives a
number of new contested subpoena requests, however, the chairperson
may call a prehearing conference to hear and decide these maters,
for which the participating arbitrator(s) would receive the normal
prehearing honorarium. See IM-10104(a) and (b).
    \10\ In situations where more than three different arbitrators
consider contested subpoena requests, NASD will pay the additional
honorarium. For example, if all three members of a panel have
decided a contested subpoena request and the chairperson is
thereafter replaced by another arbitrator, NASD would pay the $200
honorarium to the replacement chairperson for deciding any later
contested subpoena requests, because the parties already would have
incurred $600 in costs relating to the requests. Likewise, if there
have been three different chairpersons in the same proceeding, each
of whom has considered a contested subpoena request, NASD would pay
the $200 honorarium should a fourth chairperson consider a contested
subpoena request. NASD does not anticipate that either of these
situations will occur frequently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Sections 15A(b)(5) \11\ and 15A(b)(6) \12\ of the Act,
which require, among other things, that NASD's rules provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system that
the NASD operates or controls, and that NASD's rules be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. NASD believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the provisions of the Act noted above because
the panel will allocate the honorarium for deciding a discovery-related
motion equitably among the parties. Moreover, NASD believes the
proposed rule change will encourage arbitrators to decide contested
subpoena requests without scheduling a prehearing conference, thereby
expediting the arbitration process for parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is 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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASD-2006-101 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2006-101. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NASD.
    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-NASD-2006-101
and should be submitted on or before December 29, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-20873 Filed 12-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 72 (Monday, April 15, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22185-22189]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08346]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0497; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-140-AD;
Amendment 39-17415; AD 2013-07-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER
series airplanes. That AD currently requires inspecting for scribe
lines in the skin along lap joints, butt joints, certain external
doublers, and the large cargo door hinges, and doing related
investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This new AD adds an
inspection for scribe lines where external decals have been applied or
removed across lap joints, large cargo door hinges, and external
doublers, and related investigative and corrective actions if
necessary. This AD was prompted by a determination that scribe lines
could occur where external decals are installed or removed across lap
joints, large cargo door hinges, or external doublers. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct scribe lines, which can develop into
fatigue cracks in the skin. Undetected fatigue cracks can grow and
cause sudden decompression of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective May 20, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference

of a certain publication listed in the AD as of May 20, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of
January 4, 2010 (74 FR 62217, November 27, 2009).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie Violette, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6422; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2009-24-08, Amendment 39-16096 (74 FR 62217,
November 27, 2009). That AD applies to the specified products. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on May 31, 2012 (77 FR 32057). That
NPRM proposed to continue to require inspecting for scribe lines in the
skin along lap joints, butt joints, certain external doublers, and the
large cargo door hinges, and doing related investigative and corrective
actions if necessary. Additionally, that NPRM proposed to add an
inspection for scribe lines where external decals have been applied or
removed across lap joints, large cargo door hinges, and external
doublers, and related investigative and corrective actions if
necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(77 FR 32057, May 31, 2012) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Requests To Change Compliance Time

    American Airlines (AAL), British Airways, Boeing, and Emirates
Airlines requested that we change paragraph (l) of the NPRM (77 FR
32057, May 31, 2012) to specify accomplishing the decal inspection at
the compliance time described in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-53A0054,
Revision 1, dated November 4, 2010, rather than the proposed ``within
24 months after the effective date of this AD.'' The commenters stated
that the initial compliance time in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-
53A0054, Revision 1, dated November 4, 2010, for the scribe line
inspection is significantly later.
    We agree to change the compliance time for the reason the
commenters stated. We have changed the compliance time in paragraph (l)
of this AD to specify that the decal inspection must be done within 24
months after the effective date of this AD, or at the applicable time
specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-53A0054, Revision 1, dated
November 4, 2010, for the scribe line inspection, whichever is later.
We have also added a provision to paragraph (l) of this AD indicating
that a review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of
the decal inspection if a record of all decal activities (installation
or removal locations) can be conclusively determined from that review.

Request To Add Certain Exceptions

    AAL requested that we revise the NPRM (77 FR 32057, May 31, 2012)
to state that the inspections described in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-
53A0054, Revision 1, dated November 4, 2010, are necessary only in
``those areas that have been previously repaired and then the repair
has been stripped and repainted.'' AAL asserted that the inspection
exceptions described in NOTES 1. through 5. in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0054, dated
August 7, 2008, apply to paragraph (g) of the NPRM, and that these
notes state ``For each repair, if the operator can show that the
airplane has never been stripped or repainted since the repair has been
installed, then the repair inspections for that specific repair are not
required.''
    We partially agree with the commenter's request. Note 1 to
paragraph (g) of the NPRM (77 FR 32057, May 31, 2012) already allows
such an exception, which is stated in NOTE 5 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0054, dated
August 7, 2008. We have changed paragraph (g) in the NPRM to paragraph
(g)(1) in this AD and have also changed Note 1 to paragraph (g) of the
NPRM to paragraph (g)(2) in this AD. Since we have revised paragraph
(g)(1) of this AD to reference Revision 1 of Boeing Service Bulletin
777-53A0054, dated November 4, 2010, as an appropriate source of
service information, we have revised paragraph (g)(2) of this AD to
state that the inspection exceptions described in NOTES 1. through 6.
in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-
53A0054, Revision 1, dated November 4, 2010, apply to paragraph (g)(1)
of this AD.

Request To Exclude Service Bulletin Step

    AAL requested that we exclude the service information step of
putting the airplane back in a serviceable condition, because that step
does not affect the unsafe condition that the NPRM (77 FR 32057, May
31, 2012) seeks to address. Additionally, AAL explained that most
operators will accomplish these inspections as part of a heavy
maintenance visit, and returning the airplane to a serviceable
condition will not be possible in the context of that statement, but
will rather occur at a point in time well after these inspections are
complete.
    We agree with the request to state that the phrase ``Put the
airplane back to serviceable condition,'' which is referenced in the
service information specified in this final rule, is not mandated by
this final rule. Other regulations require restoring the airplane to
serviceable condition before further flight. Therefore, we have added
exception phrasing in paragraphs (g)(1), (l), and (m) of this AD; and
added new paragraph (n)(3) in this final rule.

Request To Use Alternative Measurement Tools

    AAL requested that we revise the NPRM (77 FR 32057, May 31, 2012)
to include the use of alternative equivalent measurement tools, rather
than the specialized tools described in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-
53A0054, Revision 1, dated November 4, 2010.
    We disagree with the commenter's request. To achieve an acceptable
level

of safety for the inspections required by this AD, several specialized
tools were employed. The commenter did not provide any alternative
tool(s) for our consideration or any standard on how it might be
determined that a tool might be equivalent to a tool specified in
Boeing Service Bulletin 777-53A0054, Revision 1, dated November 4,
2010. Under the provisions of paragraph (q) of this AD, however, we
will consider requests for approval of an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that
the proposed alternative measurement tool is equivalent to a
measurement tool specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-53A0054,
Revision 1, dated November 4, 2010. We have not changed this AD in this
regard.

Request To Change Compliance Time Wording

    AAL requested that we change the compliance time wording in Boeing
Service Bulletin 777-53A0054, Revision 1, dated November 4, 2010, from
``after the original issue date `on' this service bulletin,'' to
``after the original issue date `of' this service bulletin.''
    We disagree with the request to require Boeing to change the
wording in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-53A0054, Revision 1, dated
November 4, 2010. We do not consider delaying this AD action to address
the identified unsafe condition necessary for this minor wording
change. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously--and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 32057, May 31, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 32057, May 31, 2012).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 163 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Parts
             Action                     Labor cost          cost    Cost per product    Cost on U.S.  operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exploratory inspection           Up to 1,234 work-hours        $0  Up to $104,890....  Up to $17,097,070
 [retained action from AD         x $85 per hour =
 2009[dash]24[dash]08,            $104,890.
 Amendment 39[dash]16096 (74 FR
 62217, November 27, 2009)].
Inspection for decals [new       Up to 4 work-hours x           0  Up to $340........  Up to $55,420
 action].                         $85 per hour = $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this 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 have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (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.

Adoption of 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 removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2009-24-08, Amendment 39-16096 (74 FR 62217, November 27, 2009), and
adding the following new AD:

2013-07-11 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17415; Docket No. FAA-
2012-0497; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-140-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 20, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2009-24-08, Amendment 39-16096 (74 FR
62217, November 27, 2009).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -
300, and -300ER series airplanes; certificated in any category; as
identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-53A0054, Revision 1, dated
November 4, 2010.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a determination that scribe lines could
occur where external decals are installed or removed across lap
joints, large cargo door hinges, or external doublers. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct scribe lines which can develop
into fatigue cracks in the skin. Undetected fatigue cracks can grow
and cause sudden decompression of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Inspection

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2009-24-08, Amendment 39-16096 (74 FR 62217, November 27, 2009),
with new service information and a new exception.
    (1) At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0054, dated
August 7, 2008, except as provided in paragraphs (h) and (j) of this
AD: Do detailed exploratory inspections for scribe lines in the skin
along lap joints, butt joints, certain external doublers, and the
large cargo door hinges, except as specified in paragraph (n)(3) of
this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective
actions at the times specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-
53A0054, dated August 7, 2008, by accomplishing all actions
specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 777-53A0054, dated August 7, 2008; or Boeing Service
Bulletin 777-53A0054, Revision 1, dated November 4, 2010; except as
specified in paragraphs (i) and (n)(3) of this AD. As of the
effective date of this AD, use only Boeing Service Bulletin 777-
53A0054, Revision 1, dated November 4, 2010, to do the actions
required by this paragraph.
    (2) The inspection exceptions described in NOTES 1.- 5. in
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
777-53A0054, dated August 7, 2008; and NOTES 1. through 6. in
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-
53A0054, Revision 1, dated November 4, 2010; apply to paragraph
(g)(1) of this AD.

(h) Retained Exception to Service Bulletin Compliance Time

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2009-24-08, Amendment 39-16096 (74 FR 62217, November 27, 2009).
Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0054, dated August 7,
2008, specifies a compliance time after the date on that service
bulletin, paragraph (g) of this AD requires compliance within the
specified compliance time after January 4, 2010 (the effective date
of AD 2009-24-08).

(i) Retained Exception to Service Bulletin Contact Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2009-24-08, Amendment 39-16096 (74 FR 62217, November 27, 2009),
with new service information. Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
777-53A0054, dated August 7, 2008; and Boeing Service Bulletin 777-
53A0054, Revision 1, dated November 4, 2010; specify to contact
Boeing for appropriate action, accomplish applicable actions using a
method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (q) of this AD.

(j) Retained Exception to Service Bulletin Inspection Instructions

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD
2009-24-08, Amendment 39-16096 (74 FR 62217, November 27, 2009).
Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 777-53A0054, dated August 7, 2008, specifies to ``contact
Boeing for inspection requirements for operation beyond 60,000 total
flight-cycles after first repaint,'' for those airplanes, this AD
requires contacting the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), for all inspection requirements of this AD and for
doing the requirements.

(k) Retained Reporting

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD
2009-24-08, Amendment 39-16096 (74 FR 62217, November 27, 2009). At
the applicable time specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this
AD: Submit a report of positive findings of cracks found during the
inspection required by paragraphs (g) and (m) of this AD to the
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington
98124-2207. Alternatively, operators may submit reports to their
Boeing field service representatives. The report must contain, at a
minimum, the inspection results, a description of any discrepancies
found, the airplane serial number, and the number of flight cycles
and flight hours on the airplane.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD.

(l) New Inspection for External Decals

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD; or at the
applicable time specified for inspection of external doubler, lap
joint, or large cargo door hinge locations in Tables 1 through 6 of
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-
53A0054, Revision 1, dated November 4, 2010; whichever is later:
Inspect to determine the locations where external decals have been
applied or removed across affected lap joints, large cargo door
hinges, and external doublers, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-53A0054, Revision 1,
dated November 4, 2010, except as specified in paragraph (n)(3) of
this AD. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in
lieu of this inspection if a record of all decal activities
(installation or removal locations) can be conclusively determined
from that review.

(m) New Inspection for Scribe Lines and Related Investigative and
Corrective Actions

    If, during the inspection required by paragraph (l) of this AD,
any location is found where external decals have been applied or
removed across lap joints, large cargo door hinges, or external
doublers: Before further flight, do a detailed exploratory
inspection for scribe lines at all affected locations, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-
53A0054, Revision 1, dated November 4, 2010, except as specified in
paragraph (n)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative
and corrective actions at the times specified in Boeing Service
Bulletin 777-53A0054, Revision 1, dated November 4, 2010, by
accomplishing all actions specified in the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-53A0054, Revision 1,
dated November 4, 2010, except as provided by paragraphs (i) and
(n)(3) of this AD.

(n) Exceptions to Service Information

    (1) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 777-53A0054, Revision 1, dated
November 4, 2010, specifies a compliance time after the date on that
service bulletin, paragraphs (l) and (m) of this AD require
compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective
date of this AD.
    (2) Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service
Bulletin 777-53A0054, Revision 1, dated November 4, 2010, specifies
to ``contact Boeing for inspection requirements for operation beyond
60,000 total flight-cycles after first repaint,'' for those
airplanes, this AD requires contacting the Manager, Seattle ACO, for
all inspection requirements of this AD and for doing the
requirements.
    (3) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 777-53A0054, Revision 1, dated
November 4, 2010, specifies to ``Put the airplane back to a
serviceable condition,'' this AD does not require that action.

 (o) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (m) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-
53A0054, dated August 7, 2008.

(p) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    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 current 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 be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the

burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW.,
Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

(q) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the
Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved for AD 2009-24-08, Amendment 39-16096 (74 FR
62217, November 27, 2009), are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding provisions of this AD, except that AMOCs approved for
AD 2009-24-08 are not approved for fuselage areas where any decals
may have been installed or removed on airplanes that have never been
stripped or repainted since they left the factory.

(r) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Melanie Violette,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(s) 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
May 20, 2013.
    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin 777-53A0054, Revision 1, dated
November 4, 2010.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
January 4, 2010 (74 FR 62217, November 27, 2009).
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0054, dated August 7,
2008.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (5) For Boeing service information identified in this AD,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; phone:
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (6) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 29, 2013.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-08346 Filed 4-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P