[Federal Register: August 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 153)]
[Notices]
[Page 40176-40178]
[DOCID:fr11au09-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

August 3, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC09-100-000.
    Applicants: PPL Maine, LLC, Black Bear Hydro Partners, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of
Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for Expedited Action of Black
Bear Hydro Partners, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-5119.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG09-80-000.
    Applicants: Fowler Ridge II Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Fowler Ridge II Wind
Farm LLC as an Exempt Wholesale Generator.
    Filed Date: 08/3/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090803-5050.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 24, 2009.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER99-3502-009.
    Applicants: Berkshire Power Company, LLC.
    Description: EIF MBR Affiliates including Berkshire File Order No.
697-C Notification re Kleen Energy.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-5118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER02-1052-011; ER07-1000-003; ER96-1947-025.
    Applicants: Las Vegas Power Company, LLC, LS Power Marketing, LLC,
West Georgia Generating Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Notification of Change in Status pursuant to section
35.42(d).
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090730-5119.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1271-015; ER06-456-020; ER06-880-015; ER06-
954-016; ER07-424-011; EL07-54-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits proposed revisions to
its Open Access Transmission Tariff.
    Filed Date: 07/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090730-0193.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1313-005; ER03-9-017; ER98-2157-018.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc., Kansas Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc. & Kansas Gas and Electric Company
submits Triennial Market Power Report et al.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090803-0069.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 29, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-552-003.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Refund Report of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation d/b/
a National Grid.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-5108.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-394-023.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits annual recalculation of the Cost of New Entry Value for the
Transmission Provider Region.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090803-0079.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-830-002.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool.
    Description: Report of ISO New England Inc. and New England Power
Pool Regarding Treatment of Price-Responsive Demand in the New England
Electricity Markets.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-5128.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1055-004.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest ISO submits revised tariff sheets on further
compliance revising certain provisions of the Amended and Restated
Midwest Contingency Reserve Sharing Group Agreement.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-0107.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1169-004.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest ISO submits First Revised Sheet 3072 et al. to
FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 07/24/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090727-0026.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 14, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-807-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits an amendment to its 3/6/09 proposed revisions to Schedule 16
and Schedule 17 of their Open Access Transmission Tariff, FERC Electric
Tariff, Fourth Revised Vol 1.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090803-0075.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 7, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1349-001.
    Applicants: WestConnect.
    Description: WestConnect et al. submits supplement to 6/24/09
section 205 filing to Amend Original Filing to correct certain tariff
regulation.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090730-0246.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1364-001.
    Applicants: Michigan Power Limited Partnership.
    Description: Michigan Power Limited Partnership submits supplement
in response to a request from Commission Staff to remove the citation
to Green Power Partners I in section 5 of the Tariff & clean version of
the Sub. Original Tariff Sheet 2 etc.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090730-0248.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1522-000.
    Applicants: Torofino Trading LLC.
    Description: Torofino Trading, LLC submits petition for acceptance
of initial tariff, waivers and blanket authority of FERC Electric
Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090730-0144.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1528-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Pool.
    Description: New England Power Pool submits Attachment 1 et al.
with regards to the NEPOOL member application and termination
membership.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-0150.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1529-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corp submits am
amendment to its FERC Electric Tariff.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-0149.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1530-000.
    Applicants: International Transmission Company.
    Description: International Transmission Company submits materials
in support of its request for authorization to use updated depreciation
rates in the calculation of charges for transmission services.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-0148.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1531-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Arkansas, Inc submits Network Integration
Transmission Service Agreement et al to be effective 10/0/09.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090803-0076.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1533-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Florida Power & Light Company submits Revised Service
Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service with Seminole
Electric Coop, Inc.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090803-0078.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1538-000.
    Applicants: Carolina Power & Light Company.
    Description: Carolina Power & Light Company submits Rate Schedule
FERC 183 to be effective 9/29/09.

    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090803-0080.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1539-000.
    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company.
    Description: Northern Indiana Public Service Company submits a
Transmission Upgrade Agreement.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090803-0081.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES09-45-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy Services, Inc.,
Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy New Orleans,
Inc., Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C., System Energy Resources,
Inc., Entergy Texas, Inc.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorizations Under Federal
Power Act 204 of Entergy Services, Inc., et al.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-5121.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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 dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19127 Filed 8-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 20, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57424-57427]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20309]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1168; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00600-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2016-16-06, which applies to certain Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-603, B4-
605R, and B4-622R airplanes; and Model A310-304, -324, and -325
airplanes. AD 2016-16-06 requires inspections around the rivet heads of
the seal retainer run-out holes at certain frames and corrective
actions if necessary. Since the FAA issued AD 2016-16-06, a
determination was made that additional frames may also be susceptible
to cracking, and that additional airplanes may be affected by the
unsafe condition. This proposed AD would continue to require the
actions in AD 2016-16-06 and add airplanes, as specified in a European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for
incorporation by reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 4,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For material that is proposed for IBR in this NPRM, contact EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999
000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find
this material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view
this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is
also available in the AD docket at regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2022-1168.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov by searching for
and

locating Docket No. FAA-2022-1168; or in person at Docket Operations
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-1168; Project Identifier
MCAI-2022-00600-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Dan
Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International
Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]. Any commentary that
the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be
placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2016-16-06, Amendment 39-18604 (81 FR 51320,
August 4, 2016) (AD 2016-16-06), which applies to certain Airbus SAS
Model A300 B4-603, B4-605R, and B4-622R airplanes; and Model A310-304,
-324, and -325 airplanes. AD 2016-16-06 requires inspections around the
rivet heads of the seal retainer run-out holes at certain frames and
corrective actions if necessary. The FAA issued AD 2016-16-06 to
address cracking of the door frame, which could result in reduced
structural integrity of the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2016-16-06 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2016-16-06, a determination was made that
cracking may also develop on frame (FR) 56A and FR 57A and that
additional airplanes are subject to the unsafe condition.
    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2022-0078, dated May 4, 2022 (EASA
AD 2022-0078) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe
condition for all Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-603, A300 B4-605R, A300 B4-
622, A300 B4-622R and A310-203, A310-222, A310-304, A310-308, A310-322,
A310-324, and A310-325 airplanes. Model A310-308 airplanes are not
certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type
certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those
airplanes in the applicability.
    This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a crack found on door
FR 73A between stringers 24 and 25, and a determination that FR 56A and
FR 57A may also be susceptible to cracking, and that additional
airplanes may be affected. The FAA is proposing this AD to address
cracking on door frames, which could result in reduced structural
integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background
information.

Explanation of Retained Requirements

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the
requirements of AD 2016-16-06, this proposed AD would retain all of the
requirements of AD 2016-16-06. Those requirements are referenced in
EASA AD 2022-0078, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of
this proposed AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2022-0078 specifies procedures for repetitive high
frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections of rivet heads of the seal
retainer run-out holes at door frames FR 56A, FR 57A, and FR 73A for
any cracking, and repair.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2016-16-06.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in
EASA AD 2022-0078 described previously, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2022-0078 by reference in the FAA
final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with
EASA AD 2022-0078 in its entirety through that incorporation, except
for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of
this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading
of a particular section in EASA AD 2022-0078 does not mean that
operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD

requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''
compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD 2022-
0078. Service information required by EASA AD 2022-0078 for compliance
will be available at regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2022-1168 after the FAA final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 128 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained actions from AD 2016-16-06...  11 work-hours x $85 per               $0            $935        $119,680
                                         hour = $935.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimate for the on-condition repair 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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-16-06, Amendment 39-18604
(81 FR 51320, August 4, 2016); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2022-1168; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-
00600-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by November 4, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2016-16-06, Amendment 39-18604 (81 FR 51320,
August 4, 2016) (AD 2016-16-06).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all the Airbus SAS airplanes specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this AD, certificated in any
category.
    (1) Model A300 B4-603 and -622 airplanes.
    (2) Model A300 B4-605R and -622R airplanes.
    (3) Model A310-203, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a crack found on door frame
(FR) 73A between stringers 24 and 25, and a determination that FR
56A and FR 57A may also be susceptible to cracking, and that
additional airplanes may be affected by the unsafe condition. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking on door frames, which
could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2022-0078, dated May 4, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0078).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0078

    (1) Where EASA AD 2022-0078 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2022-0078 refers to September 25, 2014 (the
effective date of EASA AD 2014-0202), this AD requires using
September 8, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-16-06).
    (3) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2022-0078 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-0078
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified
in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify
your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For EASA AD 2022-0078, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this
material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
This material may be found in the AD docket at regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-1168.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International
Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

    Issued on September 15, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-20309 Filed 9-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70789-70790]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29392]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65705; File No. SR-ISE-2011-70]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Add Another Tier to an Existing Rebate Program for Qualified
Contingent Cross Orders and Solicitation Orders Executed on the
Exchange

November 8, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that, on October 25, 2011, the International Securities Exchange,
LLC (the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. The 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 ISE is proposing to add another tier to an existing rebate
program for Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'') orders and
Solicitation orders. The text of the proposed rule change is available
on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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 this proposed rule change is to add another tier to
an existing rebate program applicable to Members who submit QCC orders
and Solicitation orders to the Exchange. The Exchange currently
provides a rebate to Members who reach a certain volume threshold in
QCC orders and/or Solicitation orders during a month.\3\ Once a Member
reaches the volume threshold, the Exchange provides a rebate to that
Member for all of its QCC and Solicitation traded contracts for that
month. The rebate is paid to the Member entering a qualifying order,
i.e., a QCC order and/or a Solicitation order. The rebate applies to
QCC orders and Solicitation orders in all symbols traded on the
Exchange. Additionally, the threshold levels are based on the
originating side so if, for example, a Member submits a Solicitation
order for 1,000 contracts, all 1,000 contracts are counted to reach the
established threshold even if the order is broken up and executed with
multiple counter parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release Nos. 65087 (August 10, 2011), 76 FR
50783 (August 16, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-47); and 65583 (October 18,
2011), 76 FR 65555 (October 21, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-68).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current volume threshold and corresponding rebate per contract
is:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Rebate per
              Originating contract sides                    contract
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-1,699,999...........................................             $0.00
1,700,000-2,499,999...................................              0.03
2,500,000-3,499,999...................................              0.05
3,500,000+............................................              0.07
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to this proposed rule change, in order for a Member to
receive a rebate, it had to transact at least 1,700,000 qualifying
contracts. The Exchange now proposes to adopt a $0.01 rebate per
contract that is payable to Members who send a minimum of 100,000
contracts and up to 1,699,999 contracts. The Exchange believes the
proposed new tier will result in the Exchange providing a rebate to
more Members. With the proposed new tier, the volume threshold and
corresponding rebate per contract will be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Rebate per
              Originating contract sides                    contract
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-99,999..............................................             $0.00
100,000-1,699,999.....................................              0.01
1,700,000-2,499,999...................................              0.03
2,500,000-3,499,999...................................              0.05
3,500,000+............................................              0.07
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange currently assesses per contract transaction
charges and credits to market participants that add or remove liquidity
from the Exchange (``maker/taker fees'') in a select number of options
classes (the ``Select Symbols'').\4\ For Solicitation orders in the
Select Symbols, the Exchange currently provides a rebate of $0.15 to
contracts that do not trade with the contra order in the Solicited
Order Mechanism. The Exchange does not propose any change to that
rebate and that rebate will continue to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Options classes subject to maker/taker fees are identified
by their ticker symbol on the Exchange's Schedule of Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has designated this proposal to be operative on
November 1, 2011.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Schedule of
Fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Exchange Act'') \5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(4) of the Exchange Act \6\ in particular, in that it is an
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
Exchange Members. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change
will generally allow the Exchange and its Members to better compete for
order flow and thus enhance competition. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that its proposal to add another tier is reasonable as it will
encourage Members who direct their QCC and Solicitation orders to the
Exchange to continue to do so instead of sending this order flow to a
competing exchange. With this proposed new tier, more Members will now
receive a rebate for sending their QCC and Solicitation orders to the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it currently has other incentive programs
to promote and encourage growth in specific business areas. For
example, the Exchange has lower fees (or no fees) for customer orders;
\7\ and tiered pricing

that reduces rates for market makers based on the level of business
they bring to the Exchange.\8\ This proposed rule change targets a
particular segment in which the Exchange seeks to garnish greater order
flow. The Exchange further believes that the rebate currently in place
for QCC and Solicitation orders is reasonable because it is designed to
give Members who trade a minimum of 100,000 contracts in QCC and
Solicitation orders on the Exchange a benefit by way of a lower
transaction fee. As noted above, once a Member reaches an established
volume threshold, all of the trading activity in the specified order
type by that Member will be subject to the corresponding rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For example, the customer fee is $0.00 per contract for
products other than Singly Listed Indexes, Singly Listed ETFs and FX
Options. For Singly Listed Options, Singly Listed ETFs and FX
Options, the customer fee is $0.18 per contract. The Exchange also
currently has an incentive plan in place for certain specific FX
Options which has its own pricing. See ISE Schedule of Fees.
    \8\ The Exchange currently has a sliding scale fee structure
that ranges from $0.01 per contract to $0.18 per contract depending
on the level of volume a Member trades on the Exchange in a month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that its rebate program for QCC and
Solicitation orders is equitable because it would uniformly apply to
all Members engaged in QCC and Solicitation trading in all option
classes traded on the Exchange.

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Exchange Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act.\9\ At any time within 60 days of
the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Exchange Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Exchange 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-ISE-2011-70 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-ISE-2011-70. 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-ISE-2011-70 and should be
submitted on or before December 6, 2011.

    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. 2011-29392 Filed 11-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 239 (Thursday, December 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75570-75571]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29697]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0889]

Guidance for Industry on New Animal Drugs and New Animal Drug
Combination Products Administered in or on Medicated Feed or Drinking
Water of Food-Producing Animals: Recommendations for Drug Sponsors for
Voluntarily Aligning Product Use Conditions With Guidance for Industry
209; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a guidance for industry 213 entitled ``New
Animal Drugs and New Animal Drug Combination Products Administered in
or on Medicated Feed or Drinking Water of Food-Producing Animals:
Recommendations for Drug Sponsors for Voluntarily Aligning Product Use
Conditions With Guidance for Industry 209.'' The purpose of
this document is to provide information to sponsors of certain
antimicrobial new animal drug products who are interested in revising
conditions of use for those products consistent with FDA's Guidance for
Industry (GFI) 209, ``The Judicious Use of Medically Important
Antimicrobial Drugs in Food-Producing Animals,'' and to set timelines
for stakeholders wishing to comply voluntarily with this guidance.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances
at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to
the Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food
and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send
one self-

addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William T. Flynn, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HVF-1), Food and Drug Administration, 7519
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of April 13, 2012 (77 FR 22327), FDA
published the notice of availability for a draft guidance entitled
``New Animal Drugs and New Animal Drug Combination Products
Administered in or on Medicated Feed or Drinking Water of Food-
Producing Animals: Recommendations for Drug Sponsors for Voluntarily
Aligning Product Use Conditions With GFI 209,'' giving
interested persons until July 12, 2012, to comment on the draft
guidance. FDA received numerous comments on the draft guidance and
those comments were considered as the guidance was finalized. In
addition, editorial changes were made to improve clarity. The guidance
announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance dated April 13,
2012.
    The purpose of this guidance document is to provide information to
sponsors of certain antimicrobial new animal drug products who are
interested in revising conditions of use for those products consistent
with FDA's Guidance for Industry (GFI) 209, ``The Judicious
Use of Medically Important Antimicrobial Drugs in Food-Producing
Animals,'' and to set timelines for stakeholders wishing to comply
voluntarily with this guidance. FDA intends to work with affected drug
sponsors to help them to voluntarily implement the principles described
above through modifications to the approved conditions of use of their
new animal drug products. FDA believes a voluntary approach, conducted
in a cooperative and timely manner, is the most effective approach to
achieve the common goal of more judicious use of medically important
antimicrobials in animal agriculture.
    FDA recognizes that it is important to identify ways to assess the
effect of GFI 209 and GFI 213 over time. FDA
currently collects data on the sale and distribution of antimicrobial
drugs intended for use in food-producing animals, as well as data on
antimicrobial resistance among foodborne pathogens as part of the
National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System. FDA is currently
working in collaboration with other agencies, including United States
Department of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control, to
explore approaches for enhancing current data collection efforts in
order to measure the effectiveness of the strategy. FDA anticipates
seeking additional public input as it develops these enhancements.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This level 1 guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents
the Agency's current thinking on the topic. It does not create or
confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA
or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach
satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 514 have been approved under
OMB control numbers 0910-0032 and 0910-0669.

IV. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

V. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at
either http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: December 9, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-29697 Filed 12-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: May 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 90)]
[Notices]
[Page 26096]
[DOCID:fr08my08-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP08-158-000; CP08-184-000]

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of
Application and Petition for Declaratory Order

May 1, 2008.
    Take notice that on April 18, 2008, Williston Basin Interstate
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), P.O. Box 5601, Bismarck North
Dakota 58506-5601, filed in Docket Number CP08-158-000, pursuant to
section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), an application for authority
to expand the existing certificated boundary and add a buffer zone to
its Elk Basin Storage Reservoir located in Park County, Wyoming and
Carbon County, Montana. Also, take notice that on April 24, 2008,
Williston Basin filed in Docket Number CP08-184-000, pursuant to Rule
207(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a
petition for a declaratory order to confirm the scope of its
certificate for the Elk Basin Storage Reservoir and the jurisdictional
status under the NGA of the Elk Basin cushion gas. These filings are
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this Application or Petition should be
directed to Keith A. Tiggelaar, Director of Regulatory Affairs for
Williston Basin, 1250 West Century Avenue, Bismarck, North Dakota
58503, by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    Comment Date: May 22, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-10203 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16302-16306]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06981]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0632; FRL-9924-86]

Thiram; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of thiram
in or on banana. Taminco US, Inc. requested this tolerance under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective March 27, 2015. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 26, 2015, 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: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0632, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email 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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0632 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
May 26, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    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 (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0632, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of December 17, 2014 (79 FR 75107) (FRL-
9918-90), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
4E8268) by Taminco US, Inc., Two Windsor Plaza, Suite 411, Allentown,
PA 18195. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.132 be amended by
establishing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide thiram, in or on
banana at 0.8 parts per million (ppm). That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by Taminco US, Inc., the petitioner,
which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There
were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for thiram including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with thiram follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Thiram is a dimethyl dithiocarbamate fungicide. Thiram has been
shown to cause neurotoxicity following acute and subchronic exposures.
In the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies submitted,
neurotoxicity is characterized as lethargy, reduced and/or tail pinch
response, changes in the functional-observation battery (FOB)
parameters, increased hyperactivity, changes in motor activity, and
increased occurrences of rearing events. No treatment-related changes
were observed in brain weights or in the histopathology of the nervous
system. In a non-guideline study published in the open literature,
chronic feeding of thiram to rats caused neurotoxicity, with onset of
ataxia in some animals 5-19 months after beginning of treatment.
However, no evidence of neurotoxicity was seen following chronic
exposures in mice or rats in guideline studies submitted to the Agency.
The chronic toxicity profile for thiram indicates that the liver,
blood, and urinary system are the target organs for this chemical in
mice, rats, and dogs. There is no evidence for increased susceptibility
following in utero exposures to rats or rabbits and following prenatal
and postnatal exposures to rats for 2 generations. There is evidence of
quantitative susceptibility in the developmental neurotoxicity (DNT)
study. However, there is low concern for the increased susceptibility
seen in the DNT study since the dose response is well defined with a
clear no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and this endpoint is
used for assessing the acute dietary risk for the most sensitive

population. Thiram is classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to
humans'' based on lack of evidence for carcinogenicity in mice or rats.
There are no mutagenic/genotoxic concerns with thiram. The available
toxicological database for thiram suggests that this chemical has a low
to moderate acute-toxicity profile.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by thiram as well as the NOAEL and the lowest-
observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be
found at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``Thiram. Update to the
Aggregate Risk Assessment to Support the Requested PHI Reduction and
Increased Tolerance Request on Strawberry,'' p. 9 in docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0925.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for thiram used for human
risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published
in the Federal Register of February 12, 2014 (79 FR 8295) (FRL-9904-
22).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to thiram, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing thiram tolerances in 40 CFR 180.132.
EPA assessed dietary exposures from thiram in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    A partially refined probabilistic acute dietary-exposure assessment
was performed using 100 percent crop treated (PCT), tolerance-level
residues the highest residue found during field-trials, distributions
of field trial residues, and empirical processing factors.
    ii. Chronic exposure. Tolerances-level residues for banana and
average field trial residues for apples, peaches, and strawberries
along with 100 PCT were used for the chronic dietary exposure analysis
for all crops. Empirical processing factors were also used.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that thiram does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore,
a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk
is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use PCT
information in the dietary assessment for thiram. The acute dietary
assessment used 100 PCT, tolerance-level residues, the highest residue
found during field-trials, distributions of field trial residues, and
empirical processing factors; the chronic dietary assessment used
average field trial residues along with tolerance-level residues. In
addition, 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities. Section
408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and
information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in
food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect,
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening-
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for thiram in drinking water. These simulation models take
into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of thiram. Further information regarding EPA drinking
water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
thiram for acute exposures are 0.0478 parts per million (ppm) and
0.0025 ppm for chronic exposures (for non-cancer assessments) for
surface water. Ground water sources were not included (for acute or
chronic exposures), as the EDWCs for ground water are minimal in
comparison to those for surface water. Surface water EDWCs were
incorporated in DEEM-FCID into the food categories ``water, direct, all
sources'' and ``water, indirect, all sources'' for the dietary
assessments.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Thiram is not
available for sale or use by homeowner applicators; therefore, there
are no residential handler exposure scenarios. However, there is
potential for residential post-application dermal exposure from treated
golf course greens and tees. Residential exposures resulting from
dermal contact with thiram-treated turf were assessed for children 6 to
<11 years old, children 11 to <16 years old, and adults as described in
document ``Thiram. Update to the Aggregate Risk Assessment to Support
the Requested PHI Reduction and Increased Tolerance Request on
Strawberry,'' p. 15 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0925.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Unlike the N-methyl carbamate pesticides, EPA has not found thiram
(a dithiocarbamate) to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any
other

substances, and thiram does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance
action, therefore, EPA has assumed that thiram does not have a common
mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding
EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of
toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see
EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA
either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional
safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of
a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no evidence of
increased susceptibility following in utero exposure to rats or rabbits
or following prenatal and postnatal exposures to rats. There is
evidence of quantitative susceptibility in the DNT study. However,
there is low concern for the enhanced susceptibility seen in the DNT
study because:
    i. Clear NOAELs/LOAELs were established for the offspring effects.
    ii. The dose-response is well defined.
    iii. The behavioral effect of concern were observed only in females
on one evaluation time period.
    iv. The dose/endpoint is used for acute dietary risk for the most
sensitive population subgroup (females 13-49 years old). Consequently,
there are no residual uncertainties for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity.
    Consequently, there are no residual uncertainties for prenatal and
postnatal toxicity.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for thiram is complete with acceptable
neurotoxicity, developmental, and reproductive toxicity studies.
    ii. As explained in this unit, there are no residual uncertainties
for prenatal and postnatal toxicity.
    iii. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases.
    EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and
surface water modeling used to assess exposure to thiram in drinking
water. In addition, the acute dietary exposure analysis used field
trial data along with the 100 PCT. The chronic dietary exposure
analysis used tolerance level residues or average field residues along
with the 100 PCT. In addition, washing studies were incorporated into
the dietary analyses since thiram is not a systemic pesticide and will
wash off during normal washing procedures. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by thiram. These assessments
will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by thiram.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. The acute dietary risk estimates are not of concern to
EPA (<100% aPAD) at the 95th exposure percentile for the general U.S.
population and all other population subgroups. The acute dietary
exposure was 62% of the aPAD for females 13-49 years old, the
population subgroup with the highest percent aPAD. Therefore, the acute
aggregate risk associated with the proposed uses of thiram is not of
concern to EPA for the general U.S. population or any population
subgroups.
    2. Chronic risk. The chronic aggregate risk assessment takes into
account exposure estimates from dietary consumption of thiram (food and
drinking water). The chronic dietary risk estimates are not of concern
to EPA (<100% cPAD) for the general U.S. population and all other
population subgroups. The chronic dietary exposure was 70% of the cPAD
for children 1-2 years old, the population subgroup with the highest
estimated chronic dietary exposure. Therefore, the chronic aggregate
risk associated with the proposed uses of thiram is not of concern to
EPA for the general U.S. population or any population subgroups.
    3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. In aggregating short- and
intermediate-term risk, the Agency routinely combines background
chronic dietary exposure (food + water) with short/intermediate-term
residential exposure (dermal only). The combined exposure may then be
used to calculate an MOE for aggregate risk. Using the golfer scenario
for adult males, adult females, and children >6 years old, combined
with the applicable subpopulation with the greatest dietary exposure,
the total short/intermediate-term food and residential aggregate MOEs
are 570, 540, and 280, respectively. As these MOEs are above the target
MOE of 100, the short- and intermediate-term aggregate risks are not of
concern. For children <6 years old, there is no residential exposure,
therefore, a short/intermediate term aggregate risk assessment is not
required for this population.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, thiram is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to thiram residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (colorimetric analytical method)
is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be
requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental
Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits

(MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health
Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an
international food safety standards-setting organization in trade
agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a
tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section
408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the
Codex level. The Codex has not established a MRL for thiram in or on
banana.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, EPA is removing the expiration/revocation date for the
current tolerance for residues of thiram, in or on banana at 0.80 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action 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 action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action 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 FFDCA section 408(n)(4). 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 action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    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 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
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
the rule in the Federal Register. This action 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: March 19, 2015.
Susan Lewis,
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. In Sec.  180.132, the table in paragraph (a) is revised to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.132  Thiram; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apple...................................................            7.0
Banana \1\..............................................            0.80
Peach...................................................            7.0
Strawberry..............................................           20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No U.S. registrations as of September 23, 2009.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-06981 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 17, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48193-48194]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22415]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2017 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0580; Special Conditions No. 25-701-SC]

Special Conditions: ALOFT AeroArchitects, Boeing Model 737-800
Airplanes; Aircraft Electronic System Security Protection From
Unauthorized External Access

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Boeing Model 737-
800 airplane. These airplanes, as modified by ALOFT AeroArchitects
(ALOFT), will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to
the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for
transport-category airplanes. This design feature is a Wireless Access
Point (WAP), and connection of an improved Wireless Quick Access
Recorder (WQAR) to the satellite communications (SATCOM) system, to
provide in-flight access to information, in the WQAR, to ground
personnel. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain
adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These
special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on ALOFT on October 17, 2017. Send your
comments by December 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0580
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478).
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Varun Khanna, FAA, Airplane and
Flightcrew Interface Section, AIR-671, Transport Standards Branch,
Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The substance of these special conditions
has been subject to the notice and comment period in several prior
instances and has been derived without substantive change from those
previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would
result in a significant change from the substance contained herein.
Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification
of the airplane, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and
comment are unnecessary and impracticable.
    In addition, for the reasons stated above, the FAA finds it
unnecessary to delay the effective date and finds that good cause
exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication
in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Background

    On December 8, 2016, ALOFT applied for a supplemental type
certificate for installing a Wireless Access Point (WAP), and
connection of an improved Wireless Quick Access Recorder (WQAR) to the
satellite communications (SATCOM) system, in a Boeing Model 737-800
airplane. The Boeing Model 737-800 airplane is a twin jet engine,
short-to-medium-range passenger airplane with a maximum takeoff weight
of 174,200 pounds and seating for 189 passengers.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, ALOFT must show that the Boeing Model 737-800, as changed,
continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed
in Type Certificate No. A16WE or the applicable regulations in effect
on the date of application for the change, except for earlier
amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Boeing Model 737-800 airplane
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type
certificate to

modify any other model included on the same type certificate, to
incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special
conditions would also apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Boeing Model 737-800 airplane must comply with the
fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the
noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Boeing Model 737-800 airplane will incorporate the following
novel or unusual design features:
    A Wireless Access Point (WAP), and connection of an improved
Wireless Quick Access Recorder (WQAR) to the satellite communications
(SATCOM) system, to provide in-flight access to information, in the
WQAR, to ground personnel.

Discussion

    The applicant supplemental type certificate (STC) for the Boeing
Model 737-800 airplane design adds wired and wireless access points to
the aircraft-control domain and airline-information-services domain
networks, which do not exist on current airplanes. The aircraft-control
domain consists of the airplane electronic systems, equipment,
instruments, networks, servers, software and hardware components,
databases, etc., which are part of the type design of the airplane and
are installed in the airplane to enable the safe operation of the
airplane. These can also be referred to as flight-safety-related
systems, and include flight controls, communication, display,
monitoring, navigation, and other systems.
    The airline-information services domain generally consists of
functions that are managed or controlled by the operator, such as
administrative functions and cabin-support functions.
    This design creates a potential for unauthorized access to
aircraft-control and airline-information-services domains, as well as
security vulnerabilities related to the introduction of viruses, worms,
user mistakes, and intentional sabotage of airplane electronic assets
such as networks, systems, and databases.
    Historically, the operating systems for current airplanes are
proprietary. Therefore, they are not as susceptible to corruption from
worms, viruses and other malicious actions as are more widely used
commercial operating systems, such as Microsoft Windows, because access
to the design details of the proprietary operating system is limited to
the system developer and airplane integrator. Some systems installed on
the Boeing Model 737-800 airplane, as modified by ALOFT, will use
operating systems that are widely used and commercially available from
third-party software suppliers. The security vulnerabilities of these
operating systems may be more widely known than are the vulnerabilities
of proprietary operating systems currently used by avionics
manufacturers. The increased networking of systems based on these
popular operating systems increases the opportunity for attack by a
larger community, especially those using scripted attacks.
    While the FAA has developed policy and guidance on the use and
protection of certain databases and software, these documents did not
anticipate the potential for access to the airplane systems, networks,
and software components by external systems, and the resulting
potential security vulnerabilities from access by unauthorized users or
from the potential corruption of airplane system software resources
(applications, databases, configuration files, etc.) by worms, viruses
or other malicious entities.
    The major differences between the applicant's STC for the Boeing
Model 737-800 airplane implementation and typical implementations
include:
    1. The electronic transmission of updates to airplane servers of
databases and software applications using ground data networks rather
than physically controlled media.
    2. The connection of external data networks or devices to airplane
data networks of the Aircraft Control Domain and the Airline
Information Services Domain, which may use wired or wireless
connections.
    3. The connection of wireless devices operated by the flight crew
or operator maintenance personnel to the airplane data networks of the
Aircraft Control Domain, and connections between the Airline
Information Services Domain (including unprotected electronic flight
bags and maintenance computers) and the Aircraft Control Domain.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Boeing Model 737-800 airplane. Should ALOFT apply at a later date for a
supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on
Type Certificate No. A16WE to incorporate the same novel or unusual
design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as
well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general
applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for
approval of these features on the airplane.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Boeing Model 737-800 airplanes
modified by ALOFT.
    1. The applicant must ensure airplane electronic system security
protection from access by unauthorized sources external to the
airplane, including those possibly caused by maintenance activity.
    2. The applicant must ensure that electronic system security
threats are identified and assessed, and that effective electronic
system security protection strategies are implemented to protect the
airplane from all adverse impacts on safety, functionality, and
continued airworthiness.
    3. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the
operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the aircraft is
maintained, including all post type-certification modifications that
may have an impact on the approved electronic system security
safeguards.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 28, 2017.
Suzanne Masterson,
Acting Manager, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-22415 Filed 10-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P