[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8722-8724]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3184]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0453; Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-16-AD;
Amendment 39-16942; AD 2012-03-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter Deutschland Model EC135
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Eurocopter Deutschland (ECD) Model EC135 helicopters. This AD results
from a mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) AD issued
by the aviation authority of the Federal Republic of Germany, with
which we have a bilateral agreement, to identify and correct an unsafe
condition. The MCAI AD states that in the past, the FADEC FAIL caution
light illuminated on a few EC135 T1 helicopters. It states that this
was caused by a discrepancy in the parameters that was generated within
the fuel main metering unit and transmitted to the FADEC. This
discrepancy led to the display of the FADEC FAIL caution light and
``freezing'' of the fuel main metering valve at its position, resulting
in loss of the automatic engine control in the affected system. With
the MCAI AD, a synchronization procedure for pilots, which was already
used in the past, is being reintroduced, which prevents the parameter
discrepancy arising and thus sustains the automatic engine control.
    The AD actions are intended to prevent failure of the FADEC to
automatically meter fuel, indicated by a FADEC FAIL cockpit caution
light, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: Effective March 21, 2012.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub. You may review a copy of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137.
    Examining the AD Docket:
    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the economic evaluation, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Haight, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Guidance Group, Fort
Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On April 28, 2011, we issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the
Eurocopter Deutschland (ECD) Model EC135 helicopters. That NPRM was
published in the Federal Register on May 13, 2011, at 76 FR 27956. That
NPRM proposed to reintroduce a synchronization procedure for pilots to
prevent a parameter discrepancy from arising and sustain the automatic
engine control.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM.

FAA's Determination

    We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an
unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design, and that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed with the
changes described previously and other minor editorial changes. These
changes are consistent with the intent of the proposals in the NPRM and
will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the
scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI AD

    We use a 50-hour time-in-service (TIS) compliance time rather than
before further flight as used in the MCAI AD. Also, the MCAI AD states
to follow the ASB and insert pages into the Rotorcraft Flight Manual
(RFM). We did not follow the ASB, which requires the RFM information to
be filed in the Section 4, Normal Procedures, of the RFM. To make
compliance with the information mandatory, we are requiring that it be
inserted into the Section 2, Limitations Section of the RFM.

Related Service Information

    ECD has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. EC135-71A-024, dated
August 6, 2002 (ASB). The ASB contains copies of special information to
be inserted into the RFM for synchronizing fuel control components for
sustaining automatic engine control. The ASB specifies making copies of
the RFM pages contained in the ASB, cutting them out, and filing them
in the RFM. The actions described in the MCAI AD are intended to
correct the same unsafe condition as that identified in this service
information.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 20 helicopters of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it will take about a half work-hour to
copy and insert the synchronization procedure into the RFM. The average
labor rate is $85 per hour. We estimate the cost of the AD on U.S.
operators to be $850.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2012-03-01 Eurocopter Deutschland: Amendment 39-16942. Docket No.
FAA-2011-0453; Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-16-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model EC135 helicopters with Turbomeca Arrius
2B or 2B1 engines installed, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a discrepancy generated
within the fuel main metering unit and transmitted to the FADEC,
which could lead to the display of the FADEC FAIL caution light and
``freezing'' of the fuel main metering valve at its position. This
condition could result in loss of the automatic engine control.

 (c) Effective Date

    This AD is effective March 21, 2012.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS), either insert the
following procedure by making pen-and-ink changes to the Rotorcraft
Flight Manual (RFM) or by inserting a copy of this AD into the
Limitations Section of the RFM.

    SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR OEI/AUTOROTATION TRAINING AND APPROACH/
LANDING PREPARATION
    In order to prevent a malfunction, which could lead to a FADEC
FAIL indication, the following procedure is mandatory:
    The procedure shown below must be performed while in a steady
flight condition and at a safe altitude:

--Before initiation of every approach (with or without landing)
--During training of OEI or Autorotation before every switch-over to
IDLE

    CAUTION: DURING THE RESET PROCEDURE DESCRIBED IN THE FOLLOWING,
NO INPUTS ARE TO BE MADE TO THE COLLECTIVE LEVER OR TO THE TWIST
GRIP FOR MANUAL ENGINE CONTROL, SINCE THIS CAN LEAD TO AN
INEFFECTIVE SYNCHRONIZATION.

    The reset procedure is identical for each of two systems and is
to be applied for both engines, one after the other.
    Procedure
    1. ENG MODE SEL switch--Set from NORM TO MAN
    After illumination of the ENG MANUAL caution:
    2. ENG MODE SEL switch--Set from MAN to NORM: ENG MANUAL caution
must go off
    Repeat procedure for second engine.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft
Directorate, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal
to: Eric Haight, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Guidance
Group, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817)
222-5204, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a Part 119 operating
certificate or under Part 91, Subpart K, we suggest that you notify
your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the
manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate
holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying
with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    (1) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin EC135-71A-024, dated
August 6, 2008, which is not incorporated by reference, contains
additional information about the subject of this AD. For service
information identified in this AD, contact American Eurocopter
Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone
(972) 641-0000 or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in Luftfahrt-Bundesamt
(Germany) AD No. 2002-333, dated September 16, 2002.

(h) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Tracking Code: 7600,
Engine Controls.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 27, 2012.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-3184 Filed 2-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="13/06/2008 02:36:59 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


Permitting Authority.
                                     2,132
                                   $181,220
EPA.
                                      870
                                   $73,950
Emissions reporting.
                                    13,794
                                  $1,235,852
Auctions.
                                      66
                                    $5,610
Opt-in.
                                       6
                                     $510
NOX permitting.
                                      97
                                    $8,245
O&M of data systems.[b]
                                      N/A
                                  $2,500,000
Totals
                                    16,794
                                  $4,006,152

                [a]  2017 dollars.
                [b]  Average annual operation and maintenance costs associated with running electronic data
                systems are assumed to be incurred by an EPA contractor. Therefore, EPA will not incur any
                 labor burden for these activities.

    6.8  Reasons for Change in Burden

 	This ICR renewal reflects a few differences from the previous ICR. This section discusses the changes in burden since the last clearance.

 	Overall, the estimated annual burden in 2015 from the last clearance was 2,123,405 hours. This ICR estimates the annual burden in 2018 will be 1,873,880 hours, which is a decrease in burden of 249,525 hours, or about twelve percent. The change in burden for this collection is principally due to the following adjustments (listed in order of impact):

●	Reductions in the number of ARP-affected units and ARP NOX-affected units (due to retirements) and shift toward a less costly mix of monitoring methodologies.

●	Reduction in the number of allowance transfer and deduction submissions.

   ●	Reduction in the number of expected opt-in units.

   ●	Reduction in the number of allowance auction bids.

    6.9  Burden Statement

 	The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 1,873,880 hours per year for all respondents, or approximately 72 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

 	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0022, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in-person viewing at the Air and Radiation docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention:  Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0022 and OMB Control Number 2060-0258 in any correspondence.

                                   Appendix A

                    Acid Rain Program Forms and Instructions

 	The Acid Rain Program forms and instructions shown below can be downloaded from the Clean Air Markets website, https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/business-center.

Allowance Transfer

General Account Form
Allowance Transfer Form (see also single signature requirement)
Allowance Deduction Form
For more information, see the Acid Rain Program Annual Reconciliation Fact Sheet

Permits (including NOX Permitting)

Certificate of Representation Form (Certificate of Representation data can also be submitted online using the CAMD Business System)
Acid Rain Permit Application
Acid Rain NOX Compliance Plan
Acid Rain NOX Averaging Plan
Acid Rain New Unit Exemption
Retired Unit Exemption Form
For more information, see Acid Rain Permits and Applicability

Emissions Monitoring

Monitoring, QA, and Emissions Data Reporting Instructions (Data Elements)
For more information, see Emissions Monitoring

Auctions

2018 How to Bid Factsheet
2018 Offer Form and Instructions
2018 Letter of Credit Form and Instructions
For more information, see the Acid Rain Program Allowance Auction Fact Sheet

 Opt-in

 For information and forms for opting into the Acid Rain Program, contact the Clean Air Markets Division.


Maryland Department of the Environment

2008 & 2009 Mobile Budget Methodology

( Maryland Department of the Environment

Air and Radiation Management Administration

1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 730

Baltimore, Maryland 21230

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER> • Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

 PAGE

  PAGE  1

  PAGE  1

 seq Text_Box  \* Arabic  \r3 Error! Main Document Only.

State Implementation Plan

Maryland Department of the Environment

Air and Radiation Management Administration

APPENDIX F

2008 RFP and 2009 Attainment Year Mobile Budget Methodology and Documentation

Prepared for:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Prepared By:

Maryland Department of the Environment


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11312-11315]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04077]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0635 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0636; FRL-9551-01-OCSPP]

Adipic Acid; 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 adipic acid (CAS Reg. No. 124-04-9) when
used as an inert ingredient (acidification or buffering agent, pH
regulator) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops.
Verdesian Life Sciences U.S., LLC, and Fine Agrochemicals Ltd.,
submitted petitions to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA) requesting the establishment of an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for adipic acid. This regulation eliminates
the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of
adipic acid on food or feed commodities when used in accordance with
this exemption.

DATES: This regulation is effective March 1, 2022. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 2, 2022 and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The dockets for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) numbers EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0635 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-
0636 are available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of
Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the
Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).

     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

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-2021-0635 and/or EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0636 in
the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections
and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by
the Hearing Clerk on or before May 2, 2022. Addresses for mail and hand
delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR
178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0635 and/or
EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0636, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of October 21, 2021 (86 FR 58241) (FRL-
8792-04-OCSPP), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21
U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of pesticide petitions PP IN-11546
by Verdesian Life Sciences U.S., LLC, 1001 Winstead Drive, Suite 480,
Cary, NC 27513 and PP IN-11616 by Fine Agrochemicals Ltd., Hill End
House, Whittington, Worcester WR5 2RQ, UK. The petitions requested that
40 CFR 180.920 be amended by establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of adipic acid when used as an
inert ingredient pre-harvest. That document referenced a summary of the
petitions prepared by Verdesian Life Sciences U.S. and Fine
Agrochemicals Ltd, the petitioners, which are available in their
respective dockets, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments
received in response to the notice of filings for either petition.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of the 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 the FFDCA
defines ``safe'' to mean that EPA has determined 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 it does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing an exemption 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.''
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no harm to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure to adipic acid, including exposure
resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with adipic acid follows.
    In an effort to streamline its publications in the Federal
Register, EPA is not reprinting sections that repeat what has been
previously published for tolerance rulemakings of the same pesticide
chemical. Where scientific information concerning a particular chemical
remains unchanged, the content of those sections would not vary between
tolerance rulemakings, and EPA considers referral back to those
sections as sufficient to provide an explanation of the information EPA
considered in making its safety determination for the new rulemaking.
    EPA has previously published a rule for the exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of adipic acid

in which EPA concluded, based on the available information, that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm would result from aggregate
exposure to adipic acid. EPA is incorporating previously published
sections from that rulemaking as described further in this rulemaking,
as they remain unchanged.
    Toxicological Profile. For a discussion of the Toxicological
Profile of adipic acid, see Unit IV.A. of the December 3, 2020,
rulemaking (85 FR 78002) (FRL-10015-57).
    Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern. No
toxicological endpoint of concern for adipic acid has been identified
in the database below the limit dose of 1000 mg/kg/day.
    Exposure Assessment. The Agency's approach to and assumptions for
the exposure assessments for adipic acid are discussed in Unit IV.C. of
the December 3, 2020, rulemaking. Additional exposures are possible
from the expanded use of adipic acid; however, no toxicological
endpoint of concern was identified for adipic acid below the limit dose
and therefore, a quantitative assessment of exposure is not necessary.
    Safety Factor for Infants and Children. EPA continues to reach the
same conclusion regarding the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety
factor as discussed in Unit IV.D. of the December 3, 2020, rulemaking.
    Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety. Based on the risk
assessment and information described above, EPA concludes there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general
population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to
adipic acid residues when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide
formulations applied to growing crops. More detailed information about
the Agency's analysis can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in
the document titled ``IN-11317; Adipic Acid: Human Health Risk and
Ecological Effects Assessment of a Food Use Pesticide Inert
Ingredient'' in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0569.

V. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance, without any numerical limitation.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established under 40 CFR 180.920 for residues of adipic acid (CAS Reg.
No. 124-04-9) when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide
formulations applied pre-harvest under 40 CFR 180.920.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition
submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review
under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special
considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the 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 action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: February 17, 2022.
Marietta Echeverria,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40
CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.920, amend Table 1 to 180.920 by adding, in
alphabetical order, the inert ingredient ``Adipic acid (CAS Reg. No.
124-04-9)'' to read as follows:

Sec.  180.920  Inert ingredients used pre-harvest; exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

                           Table 1 to 180.920
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Inert ingredients              Limits                 Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Adipic acid (CAS Reg. No.     ....................  Acidification or
 124-04-9).                                          buffering agent; pH
                                                     regulator

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-04077 Filed 2-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Wednesday, June 29, 2022 10:49 AM
To:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Freeman, Caroline<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>French, Chuck<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Coke ICR2<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
CAA section 114 request for Coke Ovens RTR - email for ABC/Drummond

Hello Mr. Cornelius,

I hope this email finds you well. Attached you'll find a Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 114 information request signed on June 28, 2022, that requests information from Drummond Company's Tarrant, AL, coke oven battery facility. Please read the letter carefully and respond to this email acknowledging your receipt of the letter. Along with the letter, I have attached the following files:

-- Enclosures 1&2 as PDF files
-- Enclosures #3 through #9 as a combined PDF file (these are standard enclosures we include with all information collection requests
-- 2 Excel files to use to submit data for Enclosure 1
-- 2 Excel files to use to submit data for Enclosure 2

Please let me know if you have any questions about this request.

Thank you in advance for your efforts on this CAA section 114 request

Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

<< 114_Letter_CokeOvens-06-28-22-ABC.pdf >>
<< Encl-1-114-Coke RTR-FINAL-06-29-22.pdf >>
<< Encl-2-114-Coke RTR-FINAL-06-29-22.pdf >>
<< Encl-3-through-9-114-Coke-RTR-FINAL-06-29-22.pdf >>
<< ANSWER-Coke-Enc1-Questionnaire ICR-2016&2022-DrummondCompany.xlsx >>
<< ANSWER-COMS-Coke_Enc1_Operations_1-Minute_2-weeks-Company_Facility.csv >>
<< ANSWER-Coke-Enc2-Emission-Test-Data_Company-Facility.xlsx >>
<< ANSWER-FUGITIVE-Coke Enc2_Test Results_Company_Facility.xlsx >>


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 9, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38772-38774]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15914]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0859; Airspace Docket No. 13-AWA-4]
RIN 2120-AA66

Modification of Class B Airspace; Salt Lake City, UT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the description of Area C and Area O of the
Salt Lake City Class B airspace area by raising the floor of a small
portion of Class B airspace between the Salt Lake City Class B surface
area and the Hill Air Force Base (AFB) Class D airspace area. This
action raises the Class B airspace floor in the northeast corner of
Area C from 6,000 feet mean seal level (MSL) to 7,500 feet MSL, and
redefines the new boundary segment using the power lines underlying the
area. This action enhances the safety and flow of Visual Flight Rules
(VFR) aircraft transitioning north and south through the Salt Lake
Valley over Interstate 15.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, October 16, 2014. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy and
Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On December 19, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify areas C and O of the
Salt Lake City, UT, Class B airspace area (78 FR 76781). Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received
in response to the NPRM.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) part 71 by modifying the Salt Lake City Class B airspace area.
This action raises the floor of a portion of Class B airspace in the
northeast corner of Area C from 6,000 feet MSL to 7,500 feet MSL. The
portion of Class B airspace raised lies northeast of the power lines
running northwest and southeast under Area C and is incorporated into
the description of Area O, which has a 7,500 foot MSL Class B airspace
floor. The power lines under Area C are used to visually define the new
shared boundary between Area C and Area O in that area. These
modifications enhance the safety and flow of VFR aircraft transitioning
north and south in the Salt Lake Valley by following I-15, while
continuing to support containment of large turbine-

powered aircraft flying instrument procedures within Class B airspace.
    The Salt Lake City Class B airspace Areas A, B, and D through N
subareas are unchanged. The modifications to the Salt Lake City Class B
airspace Area C and Area O subareas are outlined below.
    Area C. Area C includes the airspace extending upward from 6,000
feet MSL to 12,000 feet MSL. The northeast boundary of Area C is
defined by a line drawn west of and parallel to the power lines that
run northwest and southeast between the Wasatch VHF Omni-directional
Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) (TCH) 006[deg] radial 9.5-mile
Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) at lat. 41[deg]00'28'' N., long.
111[deg]57'36'' W., and the TCH 016[deg] radial 8.1-mile DME at lat.
40[deg]58'48'' N., long. 111[deg]55'58'' W. The floor of Class B
airspace located immediately northeast of the power lines just
described is raised from 6,000 feet MSL to 7,500 feet MSL and
incorporated into the adjacent Area O subarea. The remainder of Area C
is unchanged.
    Area O. Area O includes the airspace extending upward from 7,500
feet MSL to 12,000 feet MSL. The boundary of the area is realigned to
match the segment of the power lines that run northwest and southeast
between the TCH 006[deg] radial 9.5-mile DME at lat. 41[deg]00'28'' N.,
long. 111[deg]57'36'' W., and the TCH 016[deg] radial 8.1-mile DME at
lat. 40[deg]58'48'' N., long. 111[deg]55'58'' W. used to define the
northeast boundary of Area C. The portion of Class B airspace
incorporated into Area O raises the floor of Class B airspace in that
area from 6,000 feet MSL to 7,500 feet MSL. The remainder of Area O is
unchanged.
    All radials listed in this Salt Lake City Class B airspace area
modification are stated in degrees relative to True North. All
geographic coordinates are stated in degrees, minutes, and seconds
based on North American Datum 83.
    Implementation of the modification to the Salt Lake City Class B
airspace area continues to ensure containment of large turbine-powered
aircraft within Class B airspace as required by FAA directive.
Additionally, this action allows VFR aircraft to transition east/west,
north of the Salt Lake City Class B surface area, and north/south, to
and from Salt Lake City Airport, using I-15 as an easily identifiable
visual landmark outside of Class B airspace below 7,500 feet MSL. This
modification enhances the safety and efficient management of aircraft
operations in the Salt Lake City, UT, terminal area.
    Class B airspace areas are published in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order
7400.9X, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 7,
2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class B airspace area listed in this
document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's
analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning
for this determination follows:
    This final rule has the following benefits.
    This final rule will improve the flow of air traffic, enhance
safety, and reduce the potential for midair collision in the Salt Lake
City Class B airspace.
    Implementation of the modification to the Salt Lake City Class B
airspace area will continue to ensure containment of large turbine-
powered aircraft within Class B airspace as required by FAA directive.
Additionally, this action will allow VFR aircraft to transition east/
west, north of the Salt Lake City Class B surface area, and north/
south, to and from Salt Lake City Airport, using I-15 as an easily
identifiable visual landmark outside of Class B airspace below 7,500
feet MSL. This modification will enhance the safety and efficient
management of aircraft operations in the Salt Lake City, UT terminal
area.
    The FAA stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking the FAA belief
that this final rule will result in minimal costs. We received no
comments regarding this determination and therefore accept that this
rule will result in minimal costs.
    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation.'' To achieve this principle, agencies are
required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to
explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals
are given serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    The FAA believes the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities as the economic impact
is expected to be minimal. We received no comments regarding this
determination in the notice of proposed rulemaking. As a

result we accept our determination of minimal cost.
    If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies
that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and
determined that it will enhance safety and will not be considered an
unnecessary obstacle to trade.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $151 million in lieu of $100
million.
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p.389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15,
2013, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 3000 Subpart B--Class B Airspace.

* * * * *

ANM UT B Salt Lake City, UT [Amended]

Salt Lake City International Airport (Primary Airport)
    (Lat. 40[deg]47'18'' N., long. 111[deg]58'40'' W.)
Wasatch VORTAC (TCH)
    (Lat. 40[deg]51'01'' N., long. 111[deg]58'55'' W.)
Hill AFB (HIF)
    (Lat. 41[deg]07'26'' N., long. 111[deg]58'23'' W.)

Boundaries.

    By removing the current descriptions of Area C and Area O, and
adding in its place:
    Area C. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to
and including 12,000 feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the TCH 316[deg] radial 11.6-mile DME at lat.
40[deg]59'21'' N., long. 112[deg]09'33'' W.; thence east to a point
west of the power lines at the TCH 006[deg] radial 9.5-mile DME at
lat. 41[deg]00'28'' N., long. 111[deg]57'36'' W.; thence southeast
to a point west of the power lines at the TCH 016[deg] radial 8.1-
mile DME at lat. 40[deg]58'48'' N., long. 111[deg]55'58'' W.; thence
south to the TCH 020[deg] radial 6.6-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]57'13''
N., long. 111[deg]55'56'' W.; thence west to a point southeast of
Seagull Point on Antelope Island at the TCH 304[deg] radial 9.3-mile
DME at lat. 40[deg]56'13'' N., long. 112[deg]09'05'' W.; thence
north to the point of beginning.
    Area O. That airspace extending upward from 7,500 feet MSL to
and including 12,000 feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of U.S. Highway 89 and a 4.3-mile
radius from Hill AFB at the TCH 014[deg] radial 13.6-mile DME at
lat. 41[deg]04'11'' N., long. 111[deg]54'39'' W.; thence clockwise
along the 4.3-mile radius from Hill AFB to 1700 South St. at the TCH
347[deg] radial 14.7-mile DME at lat. 41[deg]05'20'' N., long.
112[deg]03'21'' W.; thence west along W. 1700 South St. to the TCH
329[deg] radial 16.8-mile DME at lat. 41[deg]05'22'' N., long.
112[deg]10'20'' W.; thence south to the TCH 316[deg] radial 11.6-
mile DME at lat. 40[deg]59'21'' N., long. 112[deg]09'33'' W.; thence
east to a point west of the power lines at the TCH 006[deg] radial
9.5-mile DME at lat. 41[deg]00'28'' N., long. 111[deg]57'36'' W.;
thence southeast to a point west of the power lines at the TCH
016[deg] radial 8.1-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]58'48'' N., long.
111[deg]55'58'' W.; thence south to the TCH 020[deg] radial 6.6-mile
DME at lat. 40[deg]57'13'' N., long. 111[deg]55'56'' W.; thence
south to the intersection of Redwood Rd. and W. 500 South St. at the
TCH 049[deg] radial 3.1-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]53'02'' N., long.
111[deg]55'48'' W.; thence south to Center St. at the TCH 102[deg]
radial 2.3-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]50'32'' N., long. 111[deg]55'57''
W.; thence east along Center St. to I-15 at the TCH 099[deg] radial
3-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]50'32'' N., long. 111[deg]54'56'' W.;
thence north along I-15 to U.S. Highway 89 at the TCH 024[deg]
radial 9-mile DME at lat. 40[deg]59'14'' N., long. 111[deg]54'05''
W.; thence north along U.S. Highway 89 to the point of beginning.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 1, 2014.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2014-15914 Filed 7-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 39)]
[Notices]
[Page 9228-9229]
[DOCID:fr01mr10-92]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-D-0075]

Draft Guidance for Industry on Non-Inferiority Clinical Trials;
Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Non-
Inferiority Clinical Trials.'' This draft guidance provides sponsors
and review staff in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)
and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) with the
agency's interpretation of the underlying principles involved in the
use of non-inferiority (NI) study designs to provide evidence of the
effectiveness of a drug or therapeutic biologic product. The draft
guidance offers advice on when NI studies can be interpretable, how to
choose the NI margin, and how to analyze the results.

DATES:  Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21
CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the agency considers your comment on
this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance
by June 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES:  Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or to
the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, 1401 Rockville
Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one self-addressed
adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests.
Submit written comments on the draft guidance to the Division of
Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft
guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Robert Temple, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and
Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, rm. 4212,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
    Robert T. O'Neill, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food
and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 21, rm. 3554,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
    Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food
and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD
20852-1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Non-Inferiority Clinical Trials.'' The draft guidance
includes four parts. The first part is a discussion of regulatory,
study design, scientific, and statistical issues associated with the
use of non-inferiority studies when these are used to establish the
effectiveness of a new drug or therapeutic biologic product. The second
part focuses on some of these issues in more detail, notably the
quantitative analytical and statistical approaches used to determine
the non-inferiority margin for use in NI studies, as well as the
advantages and disadvantages of available methods. The third part
addresses commonly asked questions about NI studies and provides
practical advice about various approaches. The fourth part includes
five examples of successful and unsuccessful efforts to define non-
inferiority margins and conduct NI studies.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on non-
inferiority clinical trials. It does not create or confer any rights
for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An
alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/
GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances, http://www.fda.gov/
BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/
default.htm, or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: February 23, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-4109 Filed 2-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 242 (Monday, December 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74733-74734]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30287]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0287]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

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

DATES: This decision is effective January 10, 2013. Comments must be
received on or before January 16, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [FMCSA-2010-0287], using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, 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.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 12 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 12 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

Robert W. Blankenship (CA)
Bryan K. DeBorde (WA)
Michael K. Engemann (MO)
Pete R. Gonzalez (NM)
Perry D. Jensen (WI)
Joseph L. Jones (MD)

Gary L. Nicholas (MI)
James G. Pitchford (OH)
Virgil R. Story (AR)
John A. Thomas, Jr. (NC)
Richard L. Totels (TX)
James B. Woolwine (VA)

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

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 12 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (75 FR 69737; 76 FR 1499). Each of these 12 applicants has
requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing
that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement
specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is
stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving
with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years
indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
requirements. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting
each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate
commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for
each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by January 16, 2013.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 12 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each
case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received
to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

    Issued on: November 28, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-30287 Filed 12-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Meeting minutes for Metam Sodium Alliance FEMS model presentation to Office of Pesticide Programs staff Date: February 2, 2006 Agenda:

  Adoption of DPR recommended changes to FEMS   Limitations of buffer zone assessments during stagnation & near calm conditions   Current Activities on CALPUFF 6.0 Testing Participants:

Metam Sodium Alliance: David Sullivan ( consultant for the Metam Sodium Alliance), Ted Sears ( Bergeson and Campbell, legal counsel and technical support for the Metam Sodium Alliance)

OPP: Jeff Dawson ( HED), Billy Smith ( HED), Mike Metzger ( HED), John Leahy ( SRRD), Steve Weiss ( SRRD), Veronique LaCapra ( SRRD)

Summary of presentation:

See attached powerpoint slides.

Additional comments:

  In addition to describing these updates, David Sullivan discussed his responses to PANNA's comments on the metam sodium risk assessment; he proposed to provide these responses to OPP staff in the near future.

  HED requested that David Sullivan ( 1) modify the FEMS user guide to better explain in simple language what the FEMS output represents, and ( 2) explain how and why the outputs of FEMS and PERFUM differ ( assuming equivalent inputs).


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 230 (Thursday, December 1, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73686-73688]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26121]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1422; Project Identifier AD-2022-01208-E]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; CFM International, S.A. Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain CFM International, S.A. (CFM) LEAP-1B turbofan engines.
This proposed AD was prompted by a report of multiple aborted takeoffs
and air turn-backs (ATBs) caused by high-pressure compressor (HPC)
stall, which was induced by high levels of non-synchronous vibration
(NSV). A subsequent investigation by the manufacturer revealed that
wear on the No. 3 bearing spring finger housing can lead to high levels
of NSV. This proposed AD would require repetitive calculations of the
oil filter delta pressure (OFDP) data and, depending on the results of
the calculation, replacement of the No. 3 bearing spring finger
housing. This proposed AD would also prohibit installation of an engine
with an affected No. 3 bearing spring finger housing onto an airplane
that already has one engine with an affected No. 3 bearing spring
finger housing installed. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 17,
2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-1422; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For CFM service information identified in this NPRM,
contact CFM International Inc., Aviation Operations Center, 1 Neumann
Way, M/D Room 285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mehdi Lamnyi, Aviation Safety
Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-1422; Project Identifier
AD-2022-01208-E'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the

following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Mehdi
Lamnyi, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives
which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the
public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA was notified by the engine manufacturer of three aborted
takeoffs and two ATBs caused by HPC stall. A subsequent investigation
by the manufacturer revealed that wear on the No. 3 bearing spring
finger housing can lead to high levels of NSV, which could induce HPC
stall. This wear manifests itself early on as higher than typical OFDP
loading. As a result of its investigation, the manufacturer published
service information that specifies procedures for calculating the OFDP
data and replacing the affected No. 3 bearing spring finger housing.
This condition, if not addressed, could result in engine power loss at
a critical phase of flight such as takeoff or climb, loss of thrust
control, reduced controllability of the airplane, and loss of the
airplane.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed CFM Service Bulletin LEAP-1B-72-00-0369-01A-930A-
D, Issue 001-00, dated August 22, 2022. This service information
specifies procedures for calculating the OFDP data and replacing the
affected No. 3 bearing spring finger housing. This service information
also identifies the serial numbers of the affected No. 3 bearing spring
finger housings installed on LEAP-1B turbofan engines. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in ADDRESSES.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require a calculation of the OFDP data and,
depending on the results of the calculation, replacement of the No. 3
bearing spring finger housing. This proposed AD would also prohibit the
installation of an engine with an affected No. 3 bearing spring finger
housing onto an airplane that already has one engine with an affected
No. 3 bearing spring finger housing installed.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers that this proposed AD would be an interim action.
The design approval holder is currently developing a modification that
will address the unsafe condition identified in this proposed AD. Once
this modification is developed, approved, and available, the FAA might
consider additional rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 8 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculate OFDP data...................  1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85            $680
                                         hour = $85.
Replace No. 3 bearing spring finger     17 work-hours x $85 per           64,590          66,035         528,280
 housing.                                hour = $1,445.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

CFM International, S.A.: Docket No. FAA-2022-1422; Project
Identifier AD-2022-01208-E.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by January 17, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to CFM International, S.A. (CFM) LEAP-1B21,
LEAP-1B23, LEAP-1B25, LEAP-1B27, LEAP-1B28, LEAP-1B28B1, LEAP-
1B28B2, LEAP-1B28B2C, LEAP-1B28B3, LEAP-1B28BBJ1, and LEAP-1B28BBJ2
model turbofan engines with an installed No. 3 bearing spring finger
housing, part number (P/N) 2542M54G01, and serial number (S/N)
identified in Table 1 of CFM Service Bulletin (SB) LEAP-1B-72-00-
0369-01A-930A-D, Issue 001-00, dated August 22, 2022 (CFM LEAP-1B-
72-00-0369-01A-930A-D).

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine
Compressor Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of multiple aborted takeoffs
and air turn-backs (ATBs) caused by high-pressure compressor (HPC)
stall, which was induced by high levels of non-synchronous vibration
(NSV), and a subsequent investigation by the manufacturer that
revealed wear on the No. 3 bearing spring finger housing. The FAA is
issuing this AD to prevent HPC stall. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could result in engine power loss at a critical phase of
flight such as takeoff or climb, loss of thrust control, reduced
controllability of the airplane, and loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Before the affected No. 3 bearing spring finger housing
accumulates 125 flight cycles (FCs) since new, but not before
accumulating 75 FCs since new, or within 50 FCs after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later, calculate the oil filter
delta pressure (OFDP) data in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraphs 5.A.(1) through 5.A.(2) or 5.B.(1) through
5.B.(2), of CFM LEAP-1B-72-00-0369-01A-930A-D.
    (2) Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 100 FCs from the last
calculation of the OFDP data, and until the affected No. 3 bearing
spring finger housing accumulates 1,000 FCs since new, repeat the
calculation required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
    (3) If, during the calculation required by paragraph (g)(1) or
(2) of this AD, the OFDP data exceed the limits specified in the
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 5.A.(3) or 5.B.(3), of CFM
LEAP-1B-72-00-0369-01A-930A-D, as applicable, within 25 FCs of
performing the calculation, replace the affected No. 3 bearing
spring finger housing with a part eligible for installation.
    (4) During the next engine shop visit after the effective date
of this AD, replace the affected No. 3 bearing spring finger housing
with a part eligible for installation.

(h) Terminating Action

    Replacement of the affected No. 3 bearing spring finger housing
with a part eligible for installation, as specified in paragraphs
(g)(3) and (g)(4) of this AD, constitutes terminating action for the
calculations required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD.

(i) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install an engine
with an affected No. 3 bearing spring finger housing onto an
airplane that already has one engine with an affected No. 3 bearing
spring finger housing installed.

(j) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, a ``part eligible for installation''
is a No. 3 bearing spring finger housing that is not identified in
Table 1 of CFM LEAP-1B-72-00-0369-01A-930A-D.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO 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 manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (l) of this AD and email it to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Mehdi Lamnyi,
Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) CFM Service Bulletin LEAP-1B-72-00-0369-01A-930A-D, Issue
001-00, dated August 22, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For CFM service information identified in this AD, contact
CFM International Inc., Aviation Operations Center, 1 Neumann Way,
M/D Room 285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on November 9, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-26121 Filed 11-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 150 (Thursday, August 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47285-47286]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19747]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64990; File No. SR-EDGX-2011-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the EDGX Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule

July 29, 2011.
    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 July 27, 2011, the EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or the
``EDGX'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fees and rebates applicable to
Members \3\ of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rule 15.1(a) and (c). All
of the changes described herein are applicable to EDGX Members. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at http://www.directedge.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer, or any person
associated with a registered broker or dealer, that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Currently, the BY flag is yielded when an order is routed to BATS
BYX Exchange and removes liquidity using order types ROUC and ROBY, as
defined in Exchange Rules 11.9(b)(3)(a) and (g). The Exchange proposes
to decrease the rebate from $0.0004 to $0.0002 when an order is routed
to BATS BYX Exchange and removes liquidity.
    The Exchange also proposes to eliminate the text in footnote 7,
which describes the INET tier, and replace it with the words
``intentionally omitted.'' This tier provides that ``Members routing an
average daily volume (``ADV''): (i) Less than 5,000,000 shares will be
charged $0.0030 per share, as described in the schedule; (ii) equal to
or greater than 5,000,000 shares but less than 20,000,000 shares will
be charged Nasdaq's best removal tier rate per share; (iii) equal to or
greater than 20,000,000 shares but less than 30,000,001 shares will be
charged Nasdaq's best removal tier rate--$0.0001 per share; and (iv)
equal to or greater than 30,000,001 shares will be charged Nasdaq's
best removal tier rate--$0.0002 per share. The rates, in all cases, are
calculated for shares removed from Nasdaq.'' Conforming changes have
been made to eliminate the references to footnotes 7 and a on Flags 2
and L, as they are no longer applicable.
    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its fee
schedule on August 1, 2011.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Exchange Act,\4\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\5\ in particular, as it
is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed decrease in rebate
associated with the BY flag (from $0.0004 per share to $0.0002 per
share) represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges since it reflects a pass through of the BATS fee for
removing liquidity. EDGA believes that it is reasonable and equitable
to pass on these fees to its members. The Exchange believes that the
proposed decrease in rebate is non-discriminatory in that it applies
uniformly to all Members.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed elimination of the INET
tier in footnote 7 represents an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges as the INET tier is not used by any
Members and therefore, its elimination will not impact any Members. The
proposed elimination of the tier also provides more simplicity to the
fee schedule.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing
venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive.
The proposed rule changes reflect a competitive pricing structure
designed to incent market participants to direct their order flow to
the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rates are non-
discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to all Members. The
Exchange believes the fees and credits remain competitive with those
charged by other venues and therefore continue to be reasonable and
equitably allocated to Members.

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

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

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \7\ thereunder. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such

action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2011-22 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2011-22. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2011-22 and should be
submitted on or before August 25, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-19747 Filed 8-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P