[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 61 (Monday, March 30, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17478-17480]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06480]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0865; Product Identifier 2019-NM-158-AD; Amendment
39-19854; AD 2020-04-17]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. This AD was prompted by
reports of passenger door girt bar fitting assembly safety hooks being
stuck in the upward position. This AD requires repetitive detailed
inspections of girt bar fitting assemblies, repetitive greasing of girt
bar fitting assembly bushes, and, depending on findings, accomplishment
of applicable corrective actions, as specified in a European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 4, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 4, 2020.

ADDRESSES: For the material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2019-0865.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0865; 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 final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace
Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0207, dated August 22, 2019
(``EASA AD 2019-0207'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model
A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on November 15, 2019 (84 FR 62485). The NPRM was prompted by
reports of passenger door girt bar fitting assembly safety hooks being
stuck in the upward position. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive
detailed inspections of girt bar fitting assemblies, repetitive
greasing of girt bar fitting assembly bushes, and, depending on
findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective actions.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address passenger door girt bar
fitting assembly safety hooks being stuck in the upward position, which
could lead to girt bar disengagement from the girt bar fitting assembly
and consequent failure of the passenger door slide deployment during an
emergency, possibly preventing safe evacuation of the airplane. See the
MCAI for additional background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) indicated its
support for the NPRM.

Request To Remove or Revise Reporting Requirement

    Delta Air Lines (Delta) requested that the proposed AD be revised
to either not require reporting or to require reporting only in the
case of discrepant findings. Delta noted that only 5 discrepant safety
hooks were found during its inspection of 1,408 fittings. Delta added
that the final fix will include a retrofit of the girt bar fittings,
which should occur regardless of the number of reported failures.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. Reporting is
necessary for the girt bar fitting assembly manufacturer to determine
the extent of the discrepancies and to ascertain any necessary follow-
on actions. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Revise Reporting Compliance Time

    Delta requested that paragraph (h)(3)(i) of the proposed AD be
reworded to state that inspection report must be submitted within 90
days after the end of the maintenance visit/check during which the
inspection was performed, rather than within 90 days after the
inspection. Delta noted that maintenance personnel often do not report
findings to engineering until closure of the maintenance visit/check,
which usually happens several days or weeks after the inspection was
actually performed. Delta suggested that the revised reporting time
would remove restrictive time constraints while still meeting the
intent of the proposed AD.
    The FAA agrees with the commenter's request for the reasons
provided. The FAA has revised paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this AD to specify
that a report of findings must be submitted within 90 days after the
conclusion of the maintenance visit or check where the inspection was
completed.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule with the change described previously
and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor
changes:

     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2019-0207 describes procedures for repetitive detailed
inspections of girt bar fitting assemblies, repetitive greasing of girt
bar fitting assembly bushes, and, depending on findings, accomplishment
of applicable corrective actions. Corrective actions include rework and
replacement. EASA AD 2019-0207 also describes procedures for sending
inspection results to Airbus. 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.

Interim Action

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

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 13 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                     Estimated Costs for Required Actions *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85.............................              $0              $85           $1,105
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table does not include estimated costs for reporting.

    The FAA estimates that it would take about 1 work-hour per product
to comply with the reporting requirement in this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the
cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S. operators to be
$1,105, or $85 per product.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 3 work-hours x $85 per hour =              (\*\)         $255 \*\
 $255.................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the agency
  to provide parts cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified
  in this AD.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in
the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for
reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with
this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden
and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation
Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2020-04-17 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19854; Docket No. FAA-2019-0865;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-158-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 4, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041
airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of passenger door girt bar
fitting assembly safety hooks being stuck in the upward position.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address this condition, which could
lead to girt bar disengagement from the girt bar fitting assembly
and consequent failure of the passenger door slide deployment during
an emergency, possibly preventing safe evacuation 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
2019-0207, dated August 22, 2019 (``EASA AD 2019-0207'').

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0207

    (1) Where EASA AD 2019-0207 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2019-0207 does not apply
to this AD.
    (3) Paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2019-0207 specifies to report
inspection results to Airbus within a certain compliance time. For
this AD, report inspection results at the applicable time specified
in paragraph (h)(3)(i) or (ii) of this AD.
    (i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the conclusion of
the maintenance visit or check where the inspection was completed.
    (ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the effective date
of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards 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 local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may
be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: 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
Section, Transport Standards 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): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2019-0207 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, RC
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.
    (4) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement: A federal agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond
to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1
hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory as
required by this AD. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or
any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen Arrigotti,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0207,
dated August 22, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For information about EASA AD 2019-0207, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
89990 6017; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Transport Standards
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 on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2019-0865.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on February 25, 2020.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-06480 Filed 3-27-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25460-25462]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09901]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77694; File No. SR-BOX-2016-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (``BOX'') Options Facility

April 22, 2106.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 12, 2016, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule to
amend the BOX Volume Rebate (``BVR'') in Section I.B.2 of the Fee
Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (``BOX'') options facility. While
changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective
upon filing, the changes will become operative on April 13, 2016. The
text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office
of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on
the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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 Exchange 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 Exchange 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 Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the BOX Volume Rebate
(``BVR'') in Section I.B.2 of the Fee Schedule.
    Under the current BVR, the Exchange offers a tiered per contract
rebate for all

PIP Orders and COPIP Orders of 100 contracts and under. PIP and COPIP
executions of 100 contracts and under are awarded a per contract rebate
calculated on a monthly basis by totaling the Participant's PIP and
COPIP volume submitted to BOX, relative to the total national Customer
volume in multiply-listed options classes. The current per contract
rebate for Participants in PIP and COPIP Transactions under the BVR is:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Percentage thresholds     Per contract rebate  (all
                    of national customer          account types)
       Tier         volume in multiply-  -------------------------------
                       listed options
                     classes  (monthly)         PIP            COPIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................  0.000% to 0.159%.....         ($0.00)         ($0.00)
2................  0.160% to 0.339%.....          (0.04)          (0.02)
3................  0.340% to 0.99%......          (0.11)          (0.04)
4................  1.00% and Above......          (0.14)          (0.06)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the BVR to apply the rebate to only
those PIP Orders and COPIP Orders of 100 and under contracts that do
not trade solely with their contra order. The percentage thresholds
will continue to be based on all PIP and COPIP volume submitted to BOX,
relative to the total national Customer volume in multiply-listed
options classes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to the BVR are
reasonable, equitable and non-discriminatory. The BVR was adopted to
attract Public Customer order flow to the Exchange by offering these
Participants incentives to submit their PIP and COPIP Orders to the
Exchange. The Exchange believes it is reasonable and appropriate to
continue to provide incentives for Public Customers, which will result
in greater liquidity and ultimately benefit all Participants trading on
the Exchange. The Exchange believes providing a rebate to Participants
that reach a certain volume threshold is equitable and non-
discriminatory as the rebate will apply to all Participants uniformly.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and non-
discriminatory to apply the BVR to PIP and COPIP Orders that do not
trade solely with their contra order. The BVR is intended to
incentivize Participants to direct Customer order flow to the Exchange,
and the Exchange believes incentives are not necessary for internalized
PIP and COPIP Orders that only trade against their contra order.
Additionally, other Exchanges also make this distinction when providing
rebates for transactions in their auction mechanisms.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See the International Securities Exchange (``ISE'') Fee
Schedule. Under the ISE Fee Schedule the initiator receives a
``break-up'' rebate only for contracts that are submitted to their
auction mechanism that do not trade with their contra order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the
proposed fee changes are reasonably designed to enhance competition in
BOX transactions, particularly auction transactions.
    The proposed rule change amends the BVR to only provide a rebate
when the PIP or COPIP Order does not trade with its contra order. The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed change burdens competition
and will instead help promote competition by providing additional
incentives for market participants to submit customer order flow to BOX
and thus, create a greater opportunity for retail customers to receive
additional price improvement.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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 \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\8\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule
change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
would otherwise further the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2016-17 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2016-17. 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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such 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-BOX-2016-17, and should be
submitted on or before May 19, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-09901 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 57 (Monday, March 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15277-15280]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05970]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-
2002-12844; FMCSA-2002-13411; FMCSA-2003-14223; FMCSA-2004-18885;
FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2008-0231;
FMCSA-2008-0292; FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2010-0161;
FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-2010-0287; FMCSA-2010-0354; FMCSA-2010-0372;
FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2010-0413; FMCSA-2011-0010; FMCSA-2012-0106;
FMCSA-2012-0161; FMCSA-2012-0215; FMCSA-2012-0280; FMCSA-2012-0337;
FMCSA-2012-0338; FMCSA-2013-0021; FMCSA-2013-0022; FMCSA-2013-0023;
FMCSA-2014-0003; FMCSA-2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-0011; FMCSA-2014-0296;
FMCSA-2014-0298; FMCSA-2014-0300; FMCSA-2014-0301; FMCSA-2014-0302;
FMCSA-2014-0304]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 126
individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision
requirement in one eye.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions was effective on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in
the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before April 26,
2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-2000-7006;
FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2002-12844; FMCSA-2002-13411; FMCSA-2003-14223;
FMCSA-2004-18885; FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2006-26066;
FMCSA-2008-0231; FMCSA-2008-0292; FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-2008-0398;
FMCSA-2010-0161; FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-2010-0287; FMCSA-2010-0354;
FMCSA-2010-0372; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2010-0413; FMCSA-2011-0010;
FMCSA-2012-0106; FMCSA-2012-0161; FMCSA-2012-0215; FMCSA-2012-0280;
FMCSA-2012-0337; FMCSA-2012-0338; FMCSA-2013-0021; FMCSA-2013-0022;
FMCSA-2013-0023; FMCSA-2014-0003; FMCSA-2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-0011;
FMCSA-2014-0296; FMCSA-2014-0298; FMCSA-2014-0300; FMCSA-2014-0301;
FMCSA-2014-0302; FMCSA-2014-0304 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number(s) for this notice. Note that all comments received will
be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments online.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for two years if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be
achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to
renew exemptions at the end of the two-year period.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to driver a CMV if that person:

    Has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each
eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected
to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant
binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or
without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70[deg] in
the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize
the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and
amber.

    The 126 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of
their exemptions from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), in
accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated
these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend
each exemption for a renewable two-year period.

II. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The

Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is
being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be
consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a
driver.

III. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of
the 126 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining
an exemption from the vision requirement (63 FR 66226; 64 FR 16517; 65
FR 20245; 65 FR 57230; 65 FR 66286; 66 FR 13825; 66 FR 17994; 67 FR
57266; 67 FR 68719; 67 FR 76439; 68 FR 2629; 68 FR 10298; 68 FR 10300;
68 FR 10301; 68 FR 13360; 68 FR 15037; 68 FR 19596; 69 FR 52741; 69 FR
53493; 69 FR 62742; 69 FR 71100; 70 FR 2701; 70 FR 7545; 70 FR 7546; 70
FR 12265; 70 FR 14747; 70 FR 16886; 70 FR 16887; 71 FR 62148; 71 FR
63379; 72 FR 180; 72 FR 1051; 72 FR 1053; 72 FR 11425; 72 FR 11426; 72
FR 12665; 72 FR 18726; 72 FR 7111; 72 FR 7812; 72 FR 9397; 73 FR 46973;
73 FR 54888; 73 FR 61922; 73 FR 61925; 73 FR 74565; 73 FR 75803; 73 FR
76440; 73 FR 78423; 74 FR 6209; 74 FR 6211; 74 FR 6689; 74 FR 7097; 74
FR 8302; 74 FR 8842; 74 FR 9329; 74 FR 11991; 74 FR 15584; 75 FR 39725;
75 FR 47883; 75 FR 59327; 75 FR 61833; 75 FR 63257; 75 FR 64396; 75 FR
69737; 75 FR 72863; 75 FR 77492; 77 FR 942; 75 FR 77949; 75 FR 79083;
75 FR 80887; 76 FR 1493; 76 FR 1499; 76 FR 2190; 76 FR 5425; 76 FR
12215; 76 FR 12216; 76 FR 12408; 76 FR 15360; 76 FR 15361; 76 FR 17483;
76 FR 20076; 76 FR 20078; 76 FR 7894; 76 FR 8809; 76 FR 9856; 76 FR
9859; 76 FR 9865; 77 FR 33017; 77 FR 41879; 77 FR 44708; 77 FR 52381;
77 FR 52391; 77 FR 56262; 77 FR 60010; 77 FR 64582; 77 FR 64839; 77 FR
64841; 77 FR 68202; 77 FR 70534; 77 FR 74273; 77 FR 74731; 77 FR 74733;
77 FR 74734; 77 FR 75494; 77 FR 76167; 78 FR 800; 78 FR 8689; 78 9772;
78 FR 10250; 78 FR 10251; 78 FR 11731; 78 FR 12811; 78 FR 12813; 78 FR
12815; 78 FR 12822; 78 FR 14405; 78 FR 14410; 78 FR 16035; 78 FR 16761;
78 FR 16762; 78 FR 18667; 78 FR 20379; 78 FR 22602; 78 FR 24296; 79 FR
14571; 79 FR 28588; 79 FR 35212; 79 FR 38661; 79 FR 47175; 79 FR 56099;
79 FR 56104; 79 FR 58856; 79 FR 59357; 79 FR 65759; 79 FR 65760; 79 FR
69985; 79 FR 70928; 79 FR 72754; 79 FR 73393; 79 FR 73686; 79 FR 73687;
79 FR 74168; 80 FR 2473; 80 FR 3308; 80 FR 3723; 80 FR 6162; 80 FR
7678; 80 FR 7679; 80 FR 8751; 80 FR 8927; 80 FR 9304; 80 FR 12248; 80
FR 12251; 80 FR 12254; 80 FR 12547; 80 FR 13070; 80 FR 14220; 80 FR
14223; 80 FR 15859; 80 FR 15863; 80 FR 16500; 80 FR 16509; 80 FR 18693;
80 FR 20562; 80 FR 29152; 80 FR 33011). They have submitted evidence
showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the
requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision
impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety
while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two
years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
requirements. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting
each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate
commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for
each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of July and
are discussed below:
    As of April 1, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 49 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (65 FR
66286; 66 FR 13824; 67 FR 68719; 67 FR 76439; 68 FR 2629; 68 FR 10298;
68 FR 13360; 69 FR 53493; 69 FR 62742; 69 FR 71100; 70 FR 2701; 70 FR
7545; 70 FR 12265; 70 FR 16887; 71 FR 62148; 71 FR 63379; 72 FR 180; 72
FR 1051; 72 FR 1053; 72 FR 7812; 72 FR 9397; 72 FR 11425; 72 FR 11426;
73 FR 46973; 73 FR 54888; 73 FR 61922; 73 FR 61925; 73 FR 74565; 73 FR
75803; 73 FR 76440; 73 FR 78423; 74 FR 6209; 74 FR 6211; 74 FR 6689; 74
FR 8302; 74 FR 8842; 75 FR 39725; 79 FR 59327; 75 FR 61833; 75 FR
64396; 75 FR 69737; 75 FR 72863; 75 FR 77942; 75 FR 77949; 75 FR 79083;
75 FR 80887; 76 FR 1493; 76 FR 1499; 76 FR 2190; 76 FR 5425; 76 FR
8809; 76 FR 9859; 76 FR 9865; 76 FR 12215; 76 FR 12216; 76 FR 12406; 77
FR 33017; 77 FR 41879; 77 FR 44708; 77 FR 52381; 77 FR 52391; 77 FR
56262; 77 FR 64582; 77 FR 64839; 77 FR 64841; 77 FR 68202; 77 FR 70534;
77 FR 74273; 77 FR 74731; 77 FR 74733; 77 FR 74734; 77 FR 75494; 77 FR
76167; 78 FR 8689; 78 FR 9772; 78 FR 10250; 78 FR 10250; 78 FR 11731;
78 FR 12811; 78 FR 12813; 78 FR 12822; 78 FR 14410; 79 FR 14571; 79 FR
56099; 79 FR 56104; 79 FR 58856; 79 FR 59357; 79 FR 65759; 79 FR 65760;
79 FR 69985; 79 FR 70928; 79 FR 72754; 79 FR 73393; 79 FR 73686; 79 FR
73687; 79 FR 74168; 80 FR 2473; 80 FR 3308; 80 FR 3723; 80 FR 6162; 80
FR 7678; 80 FR 7679; 80 FR 8751; 80 FR 8927; 80 FR 9304; 80 FR 12254;
80 FR 15859; 80 FR 18693; 80 FR 20562):

David B. Albers, Sr. (UT)
Sava A. Andjelich (IN)
Kreis C. Baldridge (TN)
Robert W. Blankenship (CA)
John R. Bohman (OH)
Dale A. Braton (MN)
Wilfred J. Brinkman (OH)
Ricky D. Cain (NM)
Balwinder S. Chatha (CA)
Cody W. Cook (OK)
Jose G. Cruz Romero (TX)
Dewayne L. Cunningham (IL)
Joseph A. Dean (AR)
Michael L. Dean (MI)
Michael A. Fouch (NJ)
Steven C. Fox (NC)
Wilfred J. Gagnon (VT)
Anthony A. Gibson (IL)
Kenneth L. Handy (IA)
Jerome A. Henderson (VA)
Andrew F. Hill (TX)
Arlan T. Hrubes (TX)
Thomas J. Ivins (FL)
Daniel L. Jacobs (AZ)
Jason P. Jones (IN)
Scott A. Lambertson (MN)
Bryon K. Lavender (OH)
Jose M. Limon-Alvarado (WA)
Carl A. Lohrbach (OH)
James W. Long (AR)
Victor M. McCants (AL)
Duffy P. Metrejean, Jr. (LA)
James G. Mitchell (AL)
Jason N. Moore (VA)
Robert A. Moss (MO)
Jay C. Naccarato (WA)
William K. Otwell (LA)
Michael J. Paul (LA)
Walter B. Peltier (AZ)
Dennis W. Pevey (GA)
Reginald I. Powell (I)
Charles E. Queen (OH)
Andrew H. Rusk (IL)
Gerald E. Skalitzky (WI)
Dennis J. Smith (CO)
Karl H. Strangfeld (UT)
Artis Suitt (NC)
Donald L. Weston (PA)
Henry P. Wurtz (SD)

    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos:
FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2002-12844; FMCSA-2002-13411; FMCSA-2004-18885;
FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2008-0231;
FMCSA-2008-0292; FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-2010-0161; FMCSA-2010-0287;
FMCSA-2010-0354; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2010-0413; FMCSA-2012-0106;
FMCSA-2012-0161; FMCSA-2012-0215; FMCSA-2012-0280; FMCSA-2012-0337;
FMCSA-2012-0338; FMCSA-2014-0003; FMCSA-2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-

0011; FMCSA-2014-0296; FMCSA-2014-0298; FMCSA-2014-0300; FMCSA-2014-
0301. Their exemptions are effective as of April 1, 2017, and will
expire on April 1, 2019.
    As of April 4, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 3 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (78 FR
10251; 78 FR 20379; 80 FR 12251):

Michael L. Bergman (KS)
Efrain Gonzalez (UT)
Daniel E. Nestel (IN)

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2013-0021. Their
exemptions are effective as of April 4, 2017, and will expire on April
4, 2019.
    As of April 5, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 3 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (63 FR
66226; 64 FR 16517; 65 FR 20245; 65 FR 57230; 66 FR 17994; 67 FR 57266;
68 FR 15037; 69 FR 52741; 70 FR 2701; 70 FR 14747; 70 FR 16887; 72 FR
12665; 74 FR 9329; 76 FR 15360; 78 FR 16035; 80 FR 13070):

Richard D. Carlson (MN)
Donald P. Dodson, Jr. (WV)
Ralph A. Thompson (KY)

    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos:
FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2005-20027. Their exemptions
are effective as of April 5, 2017, and will expire on April 5, 2019.
    As of April 6, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 6 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (74 FR 7097;
74 FR 15584; 76 FR 15361; 78 FR 16761; 80 FR 12547):

Michael L. Ayers (AL)
Paul V. Daluisio (NY)
Darrel R. Martin (MD)
Pahl M. Olson (WI)
James E. Russell (AZ)
Forrest L. Wright (AL)

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2008-0398. Their
exemptions are effective as of April 6, 2017, and will expire on April
6, 2019.
    As of April 7, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 11 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (80 FR
12248; 80 FR 29152):

Justin C. Bruchman (WI)
Bradley J. Compton (ID)
Anthony C. Curtis (WA)
Lloyd A. Dornbusch (PA)
Paul E. Emmons (RI)
Thomas P. Fitzsimmons (NC)
Steve L. Frisby (CA)
Daryl G. Gibson (FL)
Carl E. Hess (PA)
Alex D. McCrady (NH)
Paul C. Swanson (IL)

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2014-0302. Their
exemptions are effective as of April 7, 2017, and will expire on April
7, 2019.
    As of April 11, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 13 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (63 FR
66226; 64 FR 16517; 66 FR 17994; 68 FR 15037; 70 FR 14747; 72 FR 12665;
74 FR 9329; 75 FR 77492; 76 FR 1493; 76 FR 5425; 76 FR 7894; 76 FR
9856; 76 FR 12408; 76 FR 15360; 76 FR 20076; 76 FR 20078; 78 FR 12822;
78 FR 800; 78 FR 16762; 80 FR 15863):

Gary W. Balcom (MI)
Wesley M. Creamer (NM)
Bruce J. Greil (WI)
Charles R. Hoeppner (MD)
Paul J. Jones (NY)
Lester H. Killingsworth (TX)
Stephanie D. Klang (MO)
Pedro G. Limon (TX)
Kenneth H. Morris (NC)
Donald R. Pointer (CO)
Larry D. Robinson (MO)
George D. Ruth (PA)
Bobby Sawyers (PA)

    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos:
FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-2010-0372; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2010-0413;
FMCSA-2011-0010. Their exemptions are effective as of April 11, 2017,
and will expire on April 11, 2019.
    As of April 16, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 5 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (78 FR
12815; 78 FR 22602; 80 FR 14220):

Terry R. Hunt (FL)
James P. O'Berry (GA)
Larry B. Peterson (AR)
Franklin P. Reigle II (MD)
Scott Wallbank (MA)

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2013-0022. Their
exemptions are effective as of April 16, 2017, and will expire on April
16, 2019.
    As of April 18, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 20 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (80 FR
14223; 80 FR 33011):

Dakota A. Albrecht (MN)
Randy A. Cimei (IL)
David E. Crane (OH)
Ronald A. Doyle (NY)
Darin T. Eubank (VA)
Phillip E. Fitzpatrick (NM)
Lucien W. Foote (NH)
Jimmy F. Garrett (AR)
Odus P. Gautney (TX)
Dale R. Goodell (SD)
Ronald J. Gruszecki (IL)
Alan L. Helfer (IL)
William F. Laforce (VT)
Robert N. Lewis (OH)
Elmer Y. Mendoza (VA)
Andrew M. Miller (IA)
J.W. Peebles (TN)
John R. Ropp (IL)
Nelson J. Stokke (CA)
Darwin L. Stuart (IL)

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2014-0304. Their
exemptions are effective as of April 18, 2017, and will expire on April
18, 2019.
    As of April 21, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 14 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (65 FR
66286; 66 FR 13825; 67 FR 68719; 68 FR 2629; 68 FR 10300; 68 FR 10301;
68 FR 19596; 70 FR 2701; 70 FR 7546; 70 FR 14747; 70 FR 16886; 70 FR
16887; 72 FR 180; 72 FR 7111; 72 FR 9397; 72 FR 11425; 72 FR 18726; 74
FR 7097; 74 FR 11991; 74 FR 15584; 75 FR 47883; 75 FR 63257; 75 FR
69737; 76 FR 1499; 76 FR 7894; 76 FR 15361; 76 FR 17483; 76 FR 20078;
77 FR 60010; 78 FR 128152; 78 FR 16761; 78 FR 18667; 78 FR 22602; 80 FR
16500):

Rodger B. Anders (MD)
John D. Bolding, Jr. (OK)
David B. Bowman (PA)
Michael P. Curtin (IL)
James G. Etheridge (TX)
Michael E. Herrera, Jr. (NM)
Michael R. Holmes (SD)
James R. Petre (MD)
Zeljko Popovac (VT)
Jerald W. Rehnke (MN)
James R. Rieck (CA)
Richie J. Schwendy (IL)
Janusz Tyrpien (FL)
Charles F. Wotring (OH)

    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos:
FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2002-12844; FMCSA-2003-14223; FMCSA-2005-20027;
FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-2010-0287;
FMCSA-2010-0372; FMCSA-2013-0022. Their exemptions are effective as of
April 21, 2017, and will expire on April 21, 2019.
    As of April 24, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 2 individuals have

satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the
vision requirements (78 FR 14405; 78 FR 24296; 80 FR 16509):

David Doub (IN)
Gale L. Smith (PA)

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2013-0023. Their
exemptions are effective as of April 24, 2017, and will expire on April
24, 2019.

Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must undergo an annual physical examination (a) by an
ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5,
who attests that the driver is otherwise physically qualified under 49
CFR 391.41; (2) each driver must provide a copy of the
ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the Medical Examiner at
the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) each driver must
provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for
retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the
certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a
duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The
exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

IV. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 126 exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless
revoked earlier by FMCSA.

    Issued on: March 20, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-05970 Filed 3-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 231 (Friday, December 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 74138]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26262]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR23-10-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  284.123 Rate Filing: COH Rates SOC Effective 10-
27-2022 to be effective 10/27/2022.
    Filed Date: 11/28/22.
    Accession Number: 20221128-5040.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/19/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-207-000.
    Applicants: MoGas Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: MoGas Pipeline LLC Omega NRA
Filing to be effective 1/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 11/28/22.
    Accession Number: 20221128-5012.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/7/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-208-000.
    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: CIG Qtly LUF True-up Nov 2022
to be effective 1/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 11/28/22.
    Accession Number: 20221128-5020.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/7/22.

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

    Dated: November 28, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-26262 Filed 12-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 45 (Friday, March 6, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13009]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04178]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry of Security

15 CFR Part 740

[Docket No.<PHONE_NUMBER>]
RIN 0694-AH93

Amendments to Country Groups for Russia and Yemen Under the
Export Administration Regulations

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) publishes this
document to correct a final rule published in the Federal Register on
February 24, 2020 (February 24th rule), in which BIS amended the Export
Administration Regulations (EAR) to revise the Country Group
designations for the Russian Federation (Russia) and Yemen based on
national security and foreign policy concerns, including proliferation-
related concerns. This document corrects the final rule to provide an
instruction to remove Yemen from Country Group B, as was described in
the preamble of the February 24th rule.

DATES: This correction is effective March 6, 2020 and is applicable on
February 24, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jodi Kouts, Director, Chemical and
Biological controls Division, at email Jodi<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by
phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For the reasons described in the preamble
and the authority as set out in the February 24, 2020 final rule (85 FR
10274), this document provides the correcting amendment to remove
``Yemen'' from the list of ``Country Group B--Countries'' in Supplement
No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 740

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, part 740 of the Export Administration Regulations (15
CFR parts 730-774) is corrected by making the following correcting
amendment:

PART 740--LICENSE EXCEPTIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 740 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; E.O. 13026, 61 FR
58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR,
2001 Comp., p. 783.

Supplement No. 1 to Part 740 [Amended]

0
2. Supplement No. 1 part 740 is amended by removing ``Yemen'' from
``Country Group B--Countries''.

    Dated: February 25, 2020.
Matthew S. Borman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2020-04178 Filed 3-5-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register: July 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 131)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 39455-39459]
[DOCID:fr09jy10-5]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1187; FRL-8831-2]

 Homobrassinolide; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of homobrassinolide in or on all food
commodities when applied/used as a plant growth regulator in accordance
with good agricultural practices. Repar Corporation submitted a
petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This
regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of homobrassinolide under the FFDCA.

DATES: This regulation is effective July 9, 2010. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 7, 2010,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1187. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal
Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fournier, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

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

B. How Can I Get Electronic Access to Other Related Information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. How Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), 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-2007-1187 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 September 7, 2010. 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 that does not contain any 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 a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1187, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

     In the Federal Register of February 13, 2008 (73 FR 8312) (FRL-
8349-2), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance
petition (PP 7F7296) by Repar Corporation, 8070 Georgia Avenue, Suite
209, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The petition requested that 40 CFR part
180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of homobrassinolide. This notice referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner, Repar Corporation,
which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments
were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments
is discussed in Unit VII.C.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(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. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B) of FFDCA, in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA, which require 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....'' Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA requires that
EPA consider ``available information concerning the cumulative effects
of a particular pesticide's residues and other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability
and the relationship of this information 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.

A. Overview of Homobrassinolide

    The active ingredient, homobrassinolide, is a plant growth
regulator that is a synthesized homologue of brassinolide, a naturally
occurring brassinosteroid. Brassinosteroids are a group of steroidal
plant hormones that were discovered in 1973, when it was shown that
pollen from rapeseed (Brassica napus) could promote stem elongation and
cell division and that the biologically active molecule was a steroid.
Brassinosteroids are ubiquitously distributed in the plant kingdom.
Since their discovery, over 70 brassinosteroids have been isolated from
plants. The occurrence of these steroids has been demonstrated in
various plant parts, such as pollen, flower buds, fruit seeds, vascular
cambium, leaves, shoots, and roots. Studies on higher plants suggest
that these steroids play a critical role in a range of developmental
processes (i.e., stem elongation, root growth, floral initiation,
etc.).

B. Biochemical Pesticide Human Health Assessment Data Requirements

    1. Acute Toxicity. Tier I acute toxicity studies showed that
homobrassinolide is a Toxicity Category IV (low toxicity) compound via
oral and inhalation routes of exposure and a Toxicity Category III
(slightly toxic) compound for dermal and eye exposures. Moreover,
homobrassinolide is neither a skin irritant nor a dermal sensitizer.
Given the results of these studies, no additional toxicity (i.e., Tiers
II or III) or residue data are required to support food uses of this
biochemical active ingredient.
    i. The acute oral median lethal doses (LD50s) for
homobrassinolide in rats and mice were greater than 5,000 milligrams
per kilogram (mg/kg) and confirmed negligible toxicity through oral
exposure (Master Record Identification Numbers [MRID Nos.] 47185118 and
47208903). Homobrassinolide is classified as Toxicity Category IV for
acute oral toxicity.
    ii. The acute dermal median lethal dose (LD50) for
homobrassinolide in rats was over 2,000 mg/kg, which confirmed low
dermal toxicity (Master Record Identification Number [MRID No.]
47185120). Homobrassinolide is classified as Toxicity Category III for
acute dermal toxicity.
    iii. The acute inhalation median lethal concentration
(LC50) was greater than 2.26 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in
rats and showed practically no inhalation toxicity or irritation (MRID
No. 47185121). Homobrassinolide is classified as Toxicity Category IV
for acute inhalation toxicity.
    iv. An acute eye study showed that exposure to homobrassinolide
will cause temporary mild eye irritation (MRID No. 47185122). As such,
EPA has determined that homobrassinolide is Toxicity Category III for
acute eye irritation. Acute dermal irritation and skin sensitization
studies showed that homobrassinolide is non-irritating and not a
sensitizer to the skin (MRID Nos. 47185123 and 47185124). EPA has
determined that homobrassinolide is Toxicity Category IV for both
dermal irritation and dermal sensitization.

    These acute toxicity studies, submitted to support the registration
of one manufacturing-use product containing homobrassinolide, confirm a
low toxicity profile.
    2. Subchronic Toxicity. i. The submitted 90-day oral toxicity (MRID
No. 47208906) study showed that test animals did not exhibit any
clinical signs of toxicity that were statistically different from
untreated controls. There were no significant changes in organ weights
(e.g., thymus and spleen) or differential white blood cell counts of
the treated animals during the 90-day study period, which would
indicate potential interference with normal immune function. The 90-day
oral feeding no observable effect level (NOEL) for Homobrassinolide
Technical was 1,000 milligrams per kilogram per day. Based on the
review of these data, EPA concluded that no subchronic oral toxicity is
expected to occur when this compound is used in accordance with good
agricultural practices.
    ii. Submission of 90-day dermal toxicity data was waived by EPA
(MRID No. 47185136) for primarily two reasons. First, dermal metabolism
of homobrassinolide is not expected to differ from its oral metabolism.
Acute guideline studies demonstrated that homobrassinolide has a low
dermal toxicity (LD50 >2,000 mg/kg), was not a dermal
irritant, and was not a dermal sensitizer. In addition, prolonged human
dermal exposure is remote as brassinosteroids are readily metabolized
by plants to inactive forms and, therefore, the application of
homobrassinolide to crop plants as a plant growth stimulant is unlikely
to increase levels of brassinosteroids in the treated plants.
Brassinosteroids are present in all plants, resulting in ubiquitous
exposure to humans and other organisms though the food chain without
causing harm.
    iii. Submission of 90-day inhalation data was also waived. The
acute inhalation toxicity study demonstrates homobrassinolide's lack of
toxicity (Toxicity Category IV) and there is no anticipated repeated
inhalation exposure under the conditions of product use at a
concentration that could be toxic (MRID No. 47185137).
    3. Developmental Toxicity and Mutagenicity. Based on in vivo
studies using oral applications of homobrassinolide, the active
ingredient did not have the potential to induce chromosome aberrations
in mice treated up to a single oral dose of 2,000 mg/kg body weight.
The active ingredient did not have micronucleus induction potential in
mice after two days of oral dosing up to a level of 2,000 mg/kg body
weight. Thus, homobrassinolide is non-mutgenic to mice (MRID No.
47208905).
    In vitro studies demonstrated that treatment with 100 and 1,000 mg/
kg body weight of homobrassinolide did not result in mortality or overt
signs of toxicity for pregnant rats during the observation period. Body
weight changes in the groups of test substance treated dams were
statistically similar to controls and no significant changes were
observed in the weights of ovary and fetuses. The test further showed
that there were no significant changes in the uterine weights, as well
as, no test related recurrent visceral and skeletal malformations when
compared to controls. Based on these findings it appears that
homobrassinolide is non-teratogenic to Wistar rats at the dose levels
of 100 and 1000 mg/kg of bodyweight (MRID No. 47185132).
    As a result of the findings in these studies, EPA concludes that
homobrassinolide is not mutagenic or genotoxic.

C. References

Bajguz, A., 2000. Effect of brassinosteroids on nuclear acids and
protein content in cultured cells of chlorella vulgaris. Plant Physiol.
Biochem. 38, 209-215.
Catterou, M., F. Dubois, H. Schaller, L. Aubanella, B. Vilcol, B. S.
Sangwan-Norrel, R.S. Sangwan, 2001. Brassinosteroids microtubules and
cell elongation in Arabidopsis thaliana. II. Effects of
brassinosteroids on microtubules and cell elongation in the bull
mutant. Planta, 212, 673-683.
IECVI.I - Individual Effects Chance Model Version 1.1. 2004. USEPA/OPP/
EFEDSeeta S.R.R., B.V.Vardhini, E. Sujatha, S. Anuradha. 2002.
Brassinosteroids-A new class of phytohormones. Current Science,
82:12391245.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of FFDCA directs EPA
to consider available information concerning exposures from the
pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures,
including drinking water from ground water or surface water and
exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings
(residential and other indoor uses).

A. Dietary Exposure

    1. Food. The primary route of homobrassinolide exposure to the
general population is expected to be through consumption of food.
Dietary exposure to homobrassinolide from application/use as a plant
growth regulator is expected to be minimal, assuming use consistent
with the labeling and use of good agricultural practices. The approved
label allows a maximum application rate of 20 grams of active
ingredient per acre per application. In addition, homobrassinolide is
present in all plants, resulting in ubiquitous exposure to humans and
other organisms through the food chain without causing harm. The
endogenous levels of brassinosteroids are in parts per million or parts
per billion (e.g., brassinosteroid levels in pollen have been measured
at 200 parts per billion). The 20 grams per acre of homobrassinolide
from application/use as a plant growth regulator is not expected to
increase natural levels of brassinosteroids in treated plants. This is
because the homobrassinolide applied/used as a crop plant will be
metabolized as the plant grows.
    2. Drinking water exposure. No significant drinking water exposure
or residues are expected to result from the use of homobrassinolide as
a plant growth regulator. The active ingredient is intended for use as
a foliar application on food commodities and is not to be applied
directly to water. If used in accordance with EPA-approved labeling and
good agricultural practices, homobrassinolide is not likely to
accumulate in drinking water. Furthermore, it is doubtful that
homobrassinolide concentrations in water would exceed levels that are
currently ubiquitous to plants. Although fate information is not
available on homobrassinolide, the compound is not soluble in water
(water solubility 3.18%), and the log Pow = 3.96 suggests both moderate
binding to soil and a low probability of ground water contamination.
Overall, drinking water exposure to residues of homobrassinolide is
expected to be minimal.

B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure

    The potential for non-dietary exposure of the general population,
including infants and children, is limited based on the use patterns of
homobrassinolide. Non-dietary exposures would not be expected to pose
any quantifiable risk to the general population.

V. 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, EPA consider
``available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a
particular pesticide's]

residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of
toxicity.''
    EPA has not found homobrassinolide to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and homobrassinolide does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For
the purposes of this tolerance exemption, therefore, EPA has assumed
that homobrassinolide 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 website at http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Determination of Safety for the United States Population, Infants,
and Children

    FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall assess the
available information about consumption patterns among infants and
children, special susceptibility of infants and children to pesticide
chemical residues, and the cumulative effects on infants and children
of the residues and other substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. In addition, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold 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 unless EPA
determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants
and children. Margins of exposure (safety), which are often referred to
as uncertainty factors, are incorporated into EPA risk assessments
either directly or through the use of a margin of exposure analysis, or
by using uncertainty (safety) factors in calculating a dose level that
poses no appreciable risk.
    Based on the results of the toxicological data discussed in Unit
III., as well as all other available information, EPA concludes that
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the United
States population, including infants and children, from aggregate
exposure to the residues of homobrassinolide. This includes all
anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there
is reliable information. EPA has arrived at this conclusion based on
the low level of toxicity of the compound, the minimal exposure from
application/use of homobrassinolide as a plant growth regulator, the
ubiquitous nature of brassinosteroids in the plant kingdom, and the
already widespread exposure to these plant steroids without any
reported adverse effects on human health. Thus, there are no threshold
effects of concern and, as a result, the provision requiring an
additional margin of safety does not apply in this instance.

VII. Other Considerations

A. 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 U.N. 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 homobrassinolide.

B. Response to Comments

     A notice of receipt of the application for registration of a
pesticide product containing homobrassinolide (a new active ingredient)
was published in the Federal Register and opened a 30-day comment
period (73 FR 8312, February 13, 2008). Two comments were received
following this publication, but neither comment was related to the
registration of homobrassinolide as a new active ingredient (i.e., both
referenced a pesticide product apparently associated with another
active ingredient) nor provided any substantive basis, such as data or
other available information, supporting their respective positions or
calling into question any of EPA's risk assessments.

VIII. Conclusions

     The Agency concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result to the United States population, including infants and
children, from aggregate exposure to residues of homobrassinolide
applied/used as a plant growth regulator in accordance with good
agricultural practices. Therefore, an exemption is established for
residues of homobrassinolide in or on all food commodities when
applied/used as a plant growth regulator in accordance with good
agricultural practices.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance exemption under section
408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of
actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory
Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final
rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this
final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order
13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does
not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it
require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance
exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed
rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final

rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

X. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: June 14, 2010.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

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

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.1297 is added to subpart D to read as follows:

Sec. 180.1297  Homobrassinolide; exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance.

    An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for
the residues of homobrassinolide in or on all food commodities when
applied/used as a plant growth regulator in accordance with good
agricultural practices.

[FR Doc. 2010-16771 Filed 7-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S