[Federal Register: September 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 188)]
[Notices]
[Page 55204-55207]
[DOCID:fr28se07-86]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0936; FRL-8147-1]

Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petitions for Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide
petitions proposing the establishment or modification of regulations
for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 29, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest, by one
of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
    Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the assigned docket ID number
and the pesticide petition number of interest. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the docket without change and may
be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, including any

personal information provided, unless the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
regulations.gov or e-mail.The regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk
or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket

Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov
website to view the docket index or access available documents.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in

hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The person listed at the end of the
pesticide petition summary of interest.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

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

this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed at the
end of the pesticide petition summary of interest.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Docket ID Numbers

    When submitting comments, please use the docket ID number and the
pesticide petition number of interest, as shown in the table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 PP Number                        Docket ID Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 5E4491                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0894
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 7E7247                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0894
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 7E7232                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0893
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 7E7244                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0872
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 6F7092                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0781
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 6F7106                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0416
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 7F7242                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0219
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 7F7243                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0871
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 7F7251                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0880
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 8E5012                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0119
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 7F7198                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0416
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 7F7225                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0810
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing notice of the filing of pesticide petitions
received under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. EPA has determined that the pesticide
petitions described in this notice contain data or information
regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however,
EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at
this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide
petitions. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on these
pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
included in this notice, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a
docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the
petitions is available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov.

New Tolerances

    1. PP 5E4491 and PP 7E7247. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0894). Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W.,
Princeton, NJ 08540, proposes to establish a tolerance for residues of
the insecticide and nematicide ethoprop in or on food commodities PP
5E4491: Mint, hay and PP 7E7247: Hop, dried cone at 0.02 parts per
million (ppm). Adequate methods for purposes of enforcement of ethoprop
tolerances in plant commodities, ruminant tissues and milk are
available. Contact: Susan Stanton, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. PP 7E7232. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0893). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W., Princeton,
NJ 08540, proposes to establish a tolerance for residues of the
herbicide sethoxydim (2-[1-(ethoxyimino)butyl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)
propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-one) and its metabolites containing
the 2-cyclohexen-1-one moiety (calculated as the herbicide) in or on
food commodities cuphea, seed at 35.0 ppm; echium, seed at 35.0 ppm;
gold of pleasure, seed at 35.0 ppm; gold of pleasure, meal at 40.0 ppm;
hare's ear mustard, seed at 35.0 ppm; lesquerella, seed at 35.0 ppm;
lunaria, seed at 35.0 ppm; meadowfoam, seed at 35.0 ppm; milkweed, seed
at 35.0 ppm; mustard, seed at 35.0 ppm; oil radish, seed at 35.0 ppm;
poppy, seed at 35.0 ppm; sesame, seed at 35.0 ppm; sweet rocket, seed
at 35.0 ppm; crambe, seed at 35.0 ppm; crambe, meal at 40.0 ppm.
Analytical methods for detecting levels of sethoxydim and its
metabolites in or on food with a limit of detection that allows
monitoring of food with residues at or above the level in these
tolerances were submitted to EPA. The proposed analytical method
involves extraction, partition, and cleanup. Samples are then analyzed
by gas chromatography with sulfur-specific flame photometric detection.
The limit of quantitation (LOQ) is 0.05 ppm. Contact: Barbara Madden,
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    3. PP 7E7244. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0872). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W., Princeton,
NJ, 08540, proposes to establish a tolerance for residues of the
fungicide cyazofamid, 4-chloro-2-cyano-N,N-dimethyl-5-(4-methylphenyl)-
1H-imidazole-1-sulfonamide and its metabolite CCIM (4-chloro-5-(4-
methylphenyl)-1H-imidazole-2-carbonitrile) in or on food commodity
carrot, roots at 0.06 ppm. Residues of cyazofamid and CCIM were
extracted from 20 grams of carrot with acetonitrile. After filtration,
the extract was transferred to a separatory funnel, washed with hexane,
cleaned up on a Nexus SPE column, and the eluate was concentrated by
using a TurboVap LV workstation. After reconstitution in 50:50
acetonitrile: water, quantitation was achieved by liquid
chromatography/mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). Contact:
Susan Stanton, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    4. PP 6F7092. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0781). Valent U.S.A. Corporation,
1600 Riviera Avenue, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, proposes to
establish a tolerance for residues of the herbicide

flumioxazin, 2-[7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-(2-propynyl)-2H-1,4-
benzoxazin-6-yl]-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-1H-isoindole-1,3(2H)-dione in or on
food commodities alfalfa, forage at 1.0 ppm and alfalfa, hay at 2.0
ppm. Practical analytical methods for detecting and measuring levels of
flumioxazin have been developed and validated in or on all appropriate
agricultural commodities and respective processing fractions. The level
of quantitation (LOQ) of flumioxazin in the methods is 0.02 ppm which
will allow monitoring of food with residues at the levels proposed for
the tolerances. Contact: James M. Stone, telephone number: (703) 305-
7391; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    5. PP 6F7106. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0416). Syngenta Crop Protection,
P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27409, proposes to establish a tolerance
for residues of the fungicide azoxystrobin, [methyl (E)-2-(2-(6-(2-
cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-yloxy)phenyl)-3-methoxyacrylate] and the Z
isomer of azoxystrobin, [methyl (Z)-2-(2-(6-(2-cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-
4-yloxy)phenyl)-3-methoxyacrylate] in or on food commodities PP 6F7106:
Barley, forage at 30 ppm; non-grass animal feeds, forage at 35 ppm;
non-grass animal feeds, hay at 100 ppm; sorghum, forage at 25 ppm;
sorghum, grain at 9 ppm; sorghum, stover at 40 ppm; wheat, forage at 30
ppm. Syngenta Crop Protection also proposes to establish a tolerance
for residues of the fungicide azoxystrobin, [methyl (E)-2-(2-(6-(2-
cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-yloxy)phenyl)-3-methoxyacrylate] in or on food
commodities PP 6F7106: Cattle, fat at 0.13 ppm; cattle, kidney at 1.00
ppm; cattle, liver at 5.10 ppm; cattle, meat at 0.07 ppm; cattle, meat
byproducts (except liver and kidney) at 0.07 ppm; goat, fat at 0.13
ppm; goat, kidney at 1.00 ppm; goat, liver at 5.10 ppm; goat, meat at
0.07 ppm; goat, meat byproducts (except liver and kidney) at 0.07 ppm;
egg white at 0.01 ppm; egg, yolk at 0.15 ppm; hog, fat at 1.10 ppm;
hog, kidney at 0.03 ppm; hog, liver at 0.23 ppm; hog, meat byproducts
(except liver and kidney) at 0.01 ppm; horse, kidney at 1.00 ppm;
horse, liver at 5.10 ppm; horse, meat at 0.07 ppm; milk at 0.05 ppm;
poultry, fat at 0.01 ppm; poultry, liver at 0.12 ppm; poultry, meat at
0.02 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.13 ppm; sheep, kidney at 1.00 ppm; sheep,
liver at 5.10 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.07 ppm; sheep, meat byproducts
(except liver and kidney) at 0.07 ppm. An adequate analytical method,
gas chromatography with nitrogen-phosphorus detection (GC-NPD) or in
mobile phase by high performance liquid chromatography with ultra-
violet detection (HPLC-UV), is available for enforcement purposes with
a limit of detection that allows monitoring of food with residues at or
above the levels set in these tolerances. The Analytical Chemistry
section of the EPA concluded that the method(s) are adequate for
enforcement. Analytical methods are also available for analyzing meat,
milk, poultry and eggs which also underwent successful independent
laboratory validations. Contact: John Bazuin, telephone number: (703)
305-7381; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    6. PP 7F7242. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0219). E. I. DuPont de Nemours and
Company, DuPont Crop Protection, P.O. Box 30, Newark, DE 19714-0030,
proposes to establish a tolerance for the sum of the residues of the
insecticide oxamyl (methyl N-N-dimethyl-N-[(methylcarbamyl)-oxy]-1-
thiooxamimidate) and its oxime metabolite methyl N,N-dimethyl-N-
hydroxy-1-thiooxaminimidate in or on food commodities wheat forage,
wheat hay, and wheat straw at 0.20 ppm. Adequate methods are available
for data collection and tolerance enforcement for plant and animal
commodities. The limit of quantitation is approximately 0.02 ppm. The
Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Vol. II, lists a gas liquid
chromatography (GLC) method with flame photometric detection (sulfur
mode), Method I, for the enforcement of tolerances for plant and animal
commodities. This method involves alkaline hydrolysis to convert oxamyl
to the oxime metabolite; therefore, the method determines combined
residues of oxamyl and its oxime metabolite. Methods used for data
collection are essentially the same as the PAM Vol. II method. The FDA
PESTDATA database dated 1/94 (PAM Volume I, Appendix I) indicates that
oxamyl is completely recovered (>80%) by multi-residue methods section
302 (Luke Method; Protocol D) and section 401. Contact: Thomas C.
Harris, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    7. PP 7F7243. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0871). Valent U.S.A. Corporation,
1600 Riviera Avenue, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, proposes to
establish a tolerance for residues of the herbicide flumioxazin, 2-[7-
fluoro-3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-(2-propynyl)-2H-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-
4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-1H-isoindole-1,3(2H)-dione in or on food commodities
corn, field grain at 0.02 ppm; corn, field forage at 0.02 ppm; and
corn, field stover at 0.02 ppm. Practical analytical methods for
detecting and measuring levels of flumioxazin have been developed and
validated in or on all appropriate agricultural commodities and
respective processing fractions. The level of quantitation (LOQ) of
flumioxazin in the methods is 0.02 ppm which will allow monitoring of
food with residues at the levels proposed for the tolerances. Contact:
James M. Stone, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    8. PP 7F7251. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0880). McLaughlin Gormley King
Company (MGK), 8810 Tenth Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55427, proposes
to establish a tolerance for residues of the insecticide D-phenothrin
in or on all food commodities at 0.01 ppm after wide-area mosquito
adulticide treatments. Golden Pacific Laboratories developed and
validated a liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry
(LC/MS/MS) analytical method with a limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 10
ppb of Sumithrin and a limit of detection (LOD) of 2 ppb as requested
by EPA (see MRID  46770001, ``Magnitude of the Residue of
Multicide Mosquito Adulticiding Concentrate 2705 in Grass, Alfalfa, and
Leaf Lettuce, Raw Agricultural Commodities Following Mosquito Control
Overhead Treatment''). This method was used to analyze a total of 332
field samples, 24 control samples, and 48 lab-fortified samples for
Sumithrin after aerial application of an end use concentrate containing
10% Sumithrin (D-phenothrin) and 10% of the synergist piperonyl
butoxide. Contact: Ann Sibold, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Amendment to Existing Tolerances

    1. PP 8E5012. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0119). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, proposes to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.532 by
extending the expiration date for the existing time-limited tolerances
established under the pesticide petition PP 8E5012, for an additional
2-year period from December 31, 2007 to December 31, 2009 for residues
of the fungicide cyprodinil: 4-cyclopropyl-6-methyl-N-phenyl-2-
pyrimidinamine in or on the food commodities onion, dry bulb at 0.60
ppm; onion, green at 4.0 ppm; and strawberry at 5.0 ppm. Syngenta Crop
Protection has developed and validated analytical methodology for
enforcement purposes. This method (Syngenta Crop Protection Method AG-
631B) has passed an Agency petition method validation for several
commodities and is currently the enforcement method for cyprodinil. An
extensive database of

method validation data using this method on various crop commodities is
available. Contact: Barbara Madden, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. PP 6F7106 and PP 7F7198. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0416). Syngenta Crop
Protection, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27409, proposes to amend the
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.507 for residues of the fungicide
azoxystrobin, (methyl (E)-2-(2-[6-(2-cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-
yloxy]phenyl)-3-methoxyacrylate) and the Z isomer of azoxystrobin,
(methyl (Z)-2-{2-[6-(2-cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-yloxy]phenyl)-3-
methoxyacrylate) in or on the food commodities PP 6F7106: Aspirated
grain fractions at 112 ppm; and PP 7F7198: Cotton, gin byproducts at 35
ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.7 ppm; and rice, wild at 5.0 ppm. An
adequate analytical method, gas chromatography with nitrogen-phosphorus
detection (GC-NPD) or in mobile phase by high performance liquid
chromatography with ultra-violet detection (HPLC-UV), is available for
enforcement purposes with a limit of detection that allows monitoring
of food with residues at or above the levels set in these tolerances.
The Analytical Chemistry section of the EPA concluded that the
method(s) are adequate for enforcement. Analytical methods are also
available for analyzing meat, milk, poultry and eggs which also
underwent successful independent laboratory validations. Contact: John
Bazuin, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

New Exemption from Tolerance

    PP 7F7225. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0810). Cutting Edge Formulations, Inc.,
5106 Bristol Industrial Way, Suite 400, Buford, GA 30518, proposes to
establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues
of d-Limonene in or on food commodities tree, vine and berry crops,
vegetable crops, alfalfa, rice, cotton, herbs and spices. Because this
petition is a request for an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without numerical limitations, no analytical method is
required. Contact: Erik Kraft, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: September 19, 2007.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-19235 Filed 9-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 92 (Monday, May 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 20946]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09770]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0362]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Renewal,
Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding, and Alteration

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Information to be collected is necessary to insure the
safety of the flying public. Documentation of maintenance repair
actions record who, what, when, where and how of the task performed.
All maintenance actions as well as documentation are required. This
collection focuses on the Form 337 which is collected by the FAA. Other
records for preventative maintenance, and logbook entries are not
collected by the FAA serve as a responsibility of the owner to maintain
in case of verification of airworthiness when seeking approvals or sale
of the aircraft. This insures proper certification of personnel; proper
tooling is utilized and accurate measures to insure safety. Total form
337s submitted in 2017 is 54,237. Total aircraft registrations on file
is 289,490. It is estimated by the numbers collected one in every five
aircraft have a 337 form submitted for major alteration and repairs
performed. Each 337 takes approximately 1 hour.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by July 12, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments:
    By Electronic Docket: www.regulations.gov (Enter docket number into
search field).
    By email: Jude Sellers<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0020.
    Title: Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding, and
Alteration.
    Form Numbers: Aircraft maintenance logbooks and form 337.
    Type of Review: Renewal of information collection.
    Background: Title 14 CFR part 43 mandates information to be
provided when an alteration or major repair is performed on an aircraft
of United Sates registry. Submission of Form 337 is required for
capture in the aircraft permanent records for current and future owners
to substantiate the requirements of the regulations, prior to operation
of the aircraft. Aircraft owners have the responsibility of
documentation and submission of all maintenance records performed to
their aircraft.
    Respondents: 289,490 Aircraft owners.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 1 hour.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: Industry Annual burden 54,237 man
hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 8, 2019.
Jude Sellers,
Aviation Safety Inspector, AFS-350 General Aviation Maintenance Branch.
[FR Doc. 2019-09770 Filed 5-10-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 213)]
[Notices]
[Page 57310]
[DOCID:fr05no09-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. TX02-1-002]

Pinnacle West Capital Corp.; Notice of Technical Conference

October 29, 2009.
    On July 15, 2008, Electrical District No. 3 of the County of Pinal,
State of Arizona (ED-3) submitted for filing, pursuant to sections 211
and 212 of the Federal Power Act,\1\ a change to the transmission
service agreement (service agreement) between ED-3 and Pinnacle West
Capital Corporation (Pinnacle West). Take notice that the Commission
staff will hold a technical conference on November 19, 2009, from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m. (Eastern Time) in room 3M-3 at the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824j, 824k (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this technical conference is to obtain additional
information regarding ED-3's submittal in order that the Commission
staff is able to develop a complete record for review. Specifically,
the conference is to focus on issues related to the degree of
integration of the ED-3 transmission and distribution system. In order
to facilitate this discussion, the Commission staff will seek
additional information regarding, but not limited to, the following:
    1. The topology and operational characteristics of ED-3's
transmission and distribution systems.
    2. How ED-3 delineates transmission and distribution facilities;
    3. The point(s) of receipt for energy received from the Arizona
Public Service Company (APS) system; the point(s) of interconnection
where energy is delivered to APS customers; the location of lines
(indicate voltage levels), transformers, breakers, switches, meters
used to serve such customers; APS extensions used to serve APS load
outside of the ED-3 system; and the location of facilities currently
under construction and planned for the next five years;
    4. Whether there are there any customers other than APS served
simultaneously from the point(s) or connected to the line(s) where APS
customers receive energy; and,
    5. Identification of all paths by which APS customers are served
and the identification of any alternative paths by which APS customers
may be served in both normal system state and during contingencies.
    ED-3 should be prepared to provide a brief presentation to address
the above information as well as provide any necessary support for each
response. Support for the issues identified above should include color-
coded system-wide and voltage level specific one-line diagrams, power
flow and other completed system studies, long-term transmission plans,
load forecast studies and any additional information that will assist
the Commission staff. This information should be filed with the
Commission at least ten days prior to the date of the technical
conference. The opportunity for comments on any additionally filed
supplemental information will be governed by a future Commission notice
regarding that filing.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this conference, please contact
Christopher Thomas,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
regarding substantive concerns.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-26629 Filed 11-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 4, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 2)]
[Notices]
[Page 375-377]
[DOCID:fr04ja06-97]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53027; File No. SR-NASD-2005-117]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1
Thereto Seeking Permanent Approval of Rules Concerning Bond Mutual Fund
Volatility Ratings Prior to Expiration of Pilot

December 27, 2005.

I. Introduction

    On September 28, 2005 and October 24, 2005 (Amendment No. 1),\1\
the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a
proposed rule change seeking permanent approval of NASD Rule 2210(c)(3)
and Interpretive Material 2210-5 (collectively, the ``Rule'')
concerning bond mutual fund volatility ratings prior to the expiration
of the pilot on December 29, 2005. The Commission published the
proposed rule change for comment in the Federal Register on November 7,
2005.\4\ The Commission received one comment letter on the proposal.\5\
On December 16, 2005, NASD filed a response to the comment letter.\6\
This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Amendment No. 1 clarified the date of expiration of the
pilot program concerning bond mutual fund volatility ratings.
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52709 (November 1,
2005), 70 FR 67509 (November 7, 2005) (the ``Notice'').
    \5\ See letter from Amy B.R. Lancellotta, Senior Counsel,
Investment Company Institute (``ICI'') to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, SEC, dated November 28, 2005 (the ``ICI Letter'').
    \6\ See letter from Joseph P. Savage, Associate Vice President,
Investment Companies Regulation, NASD, to Katherine A. England,
Assistant Director, Division of Market Regulation, SEC, dated
December 16, 2005 (the ``NASD Response'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

Background and Description of NASD's Rules on Bond Mutual Fund
Volatility Ratings

    On February 29, 2000, the SEC approved on a pilot basis NASD
Interpretive Material 2210-5, which permits members and their
associated persons to include bond fund volatility ratings in
supplemental sales literature (mutual fund sales material that is
accompanied or preceded by a fund prospectus).\7\ At that time, the SEC
also approved as a pilot NASD Rule 2210(c)(3), which sets forth the
filing requirements and review procedures applicable to sales
literature containing bond mutual fund volatility ratings. Previously,
NASD staff interpreted NASD rules to prohibit the use of bond fund
volatility ratings in sales material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 42476 (February 29,
2000); 65 FR 12305 (March 8, 2000) (SR-NASD-97-89).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IM-2210-5 permits the use of bond fund volatility ratings only in
supplemental sales literature and only if certain conditions are met:
     The word ``risk'' may not be used to describe the rating.
     The rating must be the most recent available and be
current to the most recent calendar quarter ended prior to use.
     The rating must be based exclusively on objective,
quantifiable factors.
     The entity issuing the rating must provide to investors
through a toll-free telephone number or web site (or both) a detailed
disclosure on its rating methodology.
     A disclosure statement containing all of the information
required by the Rule must accompany the rating. The statement must
include such information as the name of the entity issuing the rating,
the most current rating and the date it was issued, and a description
of the rating in narrative form containing certain specified
disclosures.
    Rule 2210(c)(3) requires members to file for approval with NASD's
Advertising Regulation Department (``Department''), at least 10 days
prior to use, bond mutual fund sales literature that includes or
incorporates volatility ratings. If the Department requests changes to
the material, the material must be withheld from publication or
circulation until the requested changes have been made or the material
has been re-filed and approved.
    IM-2210-5 and Rule 2210(c)(3) initially were approved on an 18-
month pilot basis that was scheduled to expire on August 31, 2001.\8\
NASD subsequently renewed the pilot several times, most recently with a
proposed rule change that was effective upon filing and extended the
pilot provisions until December 29, 2005.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52372 (Aug. 31,
2005); 70 FR 53405 (Sept. 8, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-104); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 48353 (Aug. 15, 2003); 68 FR 50568 (Aug.
21, 2003) (SR-NASD-2003-126); NASD Notice to Members 03-48 (Aug.
2003); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44737 (August 22, 2001);
66 FR 45350 (August 28, 2001) (SR-NASD-2001-49); NASD Notice to
Members 01-58 (Sept. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change to Make Permanent IM-2110-5 and Rule 2210(c)(3)

    As indicated in the SEC's original order approving IM-2210-5 and
Rule 2210(c)(3) on a pilot basis and the NASD Notice to Members
announcing such approval,\10\ NASD requested the 18-month pilot period
to consider whether:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 42476 (February 29,
2000); 65 FR 12305 (March 8, 2000) (SR-NASD-97-89); NASD Notice to
Members 00-23 (April 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Rule has facilitated the dissemination of useful,
understandable information to investors;
     The Rule has prevented the dissemination of inappropriate
or misleading information by members and associated persons;
     Additional guidance concerning the use of certain
terminology may be necessary;
     The Rule should apply to in-house ratings;
     The Rule should apply to all investment companies; and
     Additional standards or guidance is needed to prevent
investor confusion or minimize excessive variability among ratings of
similar portfolios.
    Due to the small number of bond volatility ratings filings received
during the Rule's initial 18-month pilot, NASD extended the pilot to
accumulate more data with which to evaluate the program. Ultimately,
during the entire period from February 2000, when the Rule was first
approved, until September 2005 (when NASD initially filed this proposed
rule change with the Commission), NASD received a total of 47
submissions from seven NASD members. In general, the filings of sales
material that contained bond fund volatility ratings have met the
Rule's requirements.
    Based on its findings during this period, NASD has concluded that
the Rule's provisions are appropriate and do not require further
amendment before being made permanent. In particular, NASD believes
that the Rule has facilitated the dissemination of useful and
understandable information to investors and has prevented the
dissemination of inappropriate or misleading information. In this
regard, virtually all of the filings NASD has received under the Rule
have met the Rule's requirements, and NASD is not aware of any investor
complaints concerning sales material that contains volatility ratings.
The level of member compliance with the Rule also suggests that members
do not require additional guidance concerning the use of certain
terminology in the Rule. Similarly, NASD is not aware of any concerns
that investors may be confused or that there may be excessive
variability among ratings or similar portfolios.
    NASD also has examined the issue of whether the Rule should apply
to in-house ratings. At the time the Rule was approved, NASD observed
that the Rule should not apply to in-house ratings on the grounds that
they are not procured for a fee, are used primarily by fund investors
as an aid in distinguishing between risk levels within a family of
funds, and may be calculated using different methods from those used in
calculating volatility ratings.\11\ NASD continues to believe that
those are persuasive reasons to not apply the Rule to in-house ratings.
NASD believes that in-house ratings do not raise the same

concerns as third-party ratings, and thus do not merit application of
the bond fund volatility ratings rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 42476 (February 29,
2000); 65 FR 12305 (March 8, 2000) (SR-NASD-97-89).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD also believes that it is unnecessary at this time to apply the
Rule to other types of investment companies, such as unit investment
trusts. At no time throughout the extended pilot period has a member
requested that the Rule apply to such material, and NASD is not aware
of third-party volatility ratings that are being used to assess other
types of investment companies. Accordingly, NASD sees no need to expand
the Rule's scope in this manner.
    NASD believes that the Rule strikes an appropriate balance between
the desire of some funds to advertise volatility ratings and the need
to include appropriate disclosures related to those ratings in sales
material. Accordingly, NASD believes that the Commission should approve
the Rule, as is, on a permanent basis.
    IM-2210-5(b)(2) requires supplemental sales literature that
includes bond fund volatility ratings to present the most recently
available rating that ``reflects information that, at a minimum, is
current to the most recently completed calendar quarter ended prior to
use.'' At the time IM-2210-5 was adopted, this standard mirrored the
timeliness standard for mutual fund performance advertising under Rule
482 under the Securities Act of 1933. However, in 2003, the SEC amended
Rule 482 to require mutual fund performance advertising to show
performance that is current to the most recent calendar quarter ended
prior to submission of an advertisement for publication, and to
indicate where the reader may obtain performance that is current to the
most recent month ended seven business days prior to use through a
toll-free (or collect) telephone number or web site, or to present
performance that meets this most recent month-end standard.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Rule 482(g) under the Securities Act of 1933.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD understands that rating agencies typically monitor bond funds
on a monthly basis, but that it is quite rare for such agencies to
revise a volatility rating on a month-to-month basis. Accordingly, NASD
does not believe that it is necessary to require that volatility
ratings be current as of the most recent month end given that, among
other things, unlike fund performance, such ratings do not frequently
change once they are issued.

III. Summary of Comments Received and NASD Response

    The Commission received one comment letter from ICI on the proposal
and a response to the comment letter by NASD.
    The ICI Letter generally expressed reservations about the use of
bond mutual fund volatility ratings in supplemental sales
literature.\13\ The ICI Letter also suggested that if the pilot program
was approved on a permanent basis that: (i) All of the critical
investor protections of the original pilot program should remain
intact, (ii) the use of a single symbol, number or letter to describe a
volatility rating should be prohibited and (iii) the timeliness
requirements of IM-2210-5(b)(2) should be modified to mirror the
requirements of Rule 482 under the Securities Act of 1933.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ ICI Letter, supra note 5, at 1.
    \14\ Id. at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to ICI's general reservations regarding the use of bond
mutual fund volatility ratings the NASD Response stated that ``during
the five and one-half years that the [bond mutual fund volatility
rules] have been in effect, NASD has found no evidence that the use of
volatility ratings in fund sales literature has harmed investors.''
\15\ NASD also noted that it ``has not proposed to eliminate any of the
disclosure, filing or other investor protection requirements that were
contained in the original pilot rule.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NASD Response, supra note 6, at 2.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, NASD expressed doubt that use of a single symbol,
number or letter to describe volatility ratings harms investors,
stating ``NASD fails to see how allowing the use of symbols, numbers
and letters to describe a fund's volatility rating is any more harmful
to investors than allowing symbols, numbers and letters to describe a
fund's performance or performance ranking.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, NASD disagreed with ICI's recommendation to modify the
timeliness requirements of IM-2210-5(b)(2).\18\ NASD indicated that
``it is quite rare for [fund rating] agencies to revise a volatility
rating on a month-to-month basis.'' Accordingly, NASD expressed its
belief that it is not necessary ``to require that volatility ratings be
current as of the most recent month end given that such ratings rarely
change once they are issued.'' \19\ NASD, however, cautioned its
members that a ``member may not distribute supplemental sales
literature containing a bond fund volatility rating if the member knows
or has reason to know that the rating is false or misleading, even if
the rating was current as of the most recent calendar quarter end.''
\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id. See also NASD Rule 2210(d)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the
Act, which requires, among other things, NASD rules be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The Commission believes that making
IM-2210-5 and Rule 2210(c)(3) effective on a permanent basis will
protect investors and the public interest by permitting NASD members to
provide investors with useful information in a manner designed to
prevent dissemination of inappropriate or misleading information.

V. Conclusions

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\21\ that the proposed rule change, as amended (SR-NASD-2005-117),
be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-8228 Filed 1-3-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P