EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: Hope Johnson,<PHONE_NUMBER>

ISK Biosciences Corporation

Pesticide Petition 7F8647

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP 7F8647) from ISK Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Road, Suite A, Concord, Ohio, 44077, proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide pyriofenone, (5-chloro-2-methoxy-4-methyl-3-pyridinyl)(2,3,4-trimethoxy-6-methylphenyl)methanone, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the raw agricultural commodity Fruiting Vegetables, Crop Group 8-10 at 0.30 parts per million (ppm).  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

 Plant metabolism. The metabolism of pyriofenone as well as the nature of the residues in plants is adequately understood for the purposes of this tolerance.  Metabolism studies were conducted with three diverse crops, grapes, wheat and tomatoes.  All three crops showed a similar pattern of metabolism with unchanged pyriofenone remaining on the plant surfaces.  The metabolism of pyriofenone in plants resulted in a large number of fragments in only trace amounts.  Hence, parent pyriofenone is the only residue of concern.

 Analytical method. A practical analytical method for Pyriofenone using Liquid Chromatography-MS/MS is available for analysis of grapes.  This method has been confirmed through independent laboratory validation and is available for enforcement purposes.

 Magnitude of residues. For the fruiting vegetable crop group, trials were conducted at 35 sites in tomato and pepper growing areas in the USA and Canada on tomatoes, bell peppers and non-bell peppers.  Four applications at the target rate of 0.0804 lb a.i./A (90 g ai/ha) at 6 to 8-day intervals were made to the treated plots with a zero-day pre-harvest interval.  The highest residues found were 0.14 ppm on tomato, 0.12 ppm on bell peppers and 0.098 ppm on non-bell peppers.  The average residues found were 0.060 ppm on tomato, 0.045 ppm on bell peppers and 0.071 ppm on non-bell peppers.  In the processing study conducted at a 5X rate on tomatoes, the residues found in tomato puree, paste and juice did not concentrate and were all less than that found on the RAC, tomatoes.

B. Toxicological Profile

   1. 	Acute toxicity.  Results from a battery of acute toxicity studies place technical pyriofenone in Toxicity Category III for oral LD50 and dermal LD50, and Category IV for inhalation LC50, dermal irritation, and eye irritation.  Technical pyriofenone was not a dermal sensitizer.
      In an acute neurotoxicity study, pyriofenone was administered by oral gavage to groups of CD rats at oral doses up to 2000 mg/kg, resulting in minimal, transient change and there was no evidence of any neurological effect.  Consequently, 2000 mg/kg was considered to be the NOEL.
   2.  Genotoxicity. The genotoxic potential of pyriofenone has been assessed as negative by several in vitro and in vivo mutagenicity studies. Pyriofenone did not elicit a genotoxic response in any of the studies conducted.
   3.  Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Results from a two-generation study indicate that pyriofenone is not a reproductive toxicant. The dietary concentrations for the study were 0, 150, 1000 and 5000 ppm. The NOEL for systemic toxicity was 1000 ppm (equivalent to 64.1 and 79.2 mg/kg/day, respectively for P males and females and 76.8 and 84.4 mg/kg/day for F1 males and females). The NOEL for reproductive toxicity was 5000 ppm (equivalent to 334 and 395 mg/kg/day for P males and females, respectively and 393 and 434 mg/kg/day for F1 males and females).
      Results from developmental studies in rats and rabbits provided no indication of teratogenic effects for fetuses of either species and no evidence of developmental effects in the absence of maternal toxicity. For the rat teratology study, doses of 0, 30, 300 or 1000 mg/kg bwt/day were administered between Days 6 and 19 of gestation. The NOEL for maternal toxicity was 30 mg/kg bwt/day.  The NOEL for developmental toxicity was 1000 mg/kg bwt/day, the highest dose tested. Pyriofenone technical was not teratogenic to rats.  For the rabbit teratology study, doses of 0, 30, 100, or 300 mg/kg bwt/day were administered between Days 6 and 27 of gestation. The NOEL for maternal toxicity was 100 mg/kg bwt/day.  The NOEL for developmental toxicity was 300 mg/kg bwt/day, the highest dose tested. Pyriofenone technical was not teratogenic to rabbits.
   4.  Subchronic toxicity. Short-term (28-day) toxicity studies were conducted in rats and dogs.  Doses evaluated in the rat study were 0, 300, 3000, 10,000, and 20,000 ppm.  The NOEL was 300 ppm (equivalent to 24.2 and 26.1 mg/kg bwt/day, respectively for males and females). Effects observed at 3000 ppm included hyaline droplets in the kidney proximal tubular cells, changes in the blood plasma and increased liver weights for males and increased liver weights, increased kidney weights and hepatocyte hypertrophy in one animal for females.  Doses evaluated in the dog study were 0, 500, 1500, 5000, and 15,000 ppm.  The NOEL was 5000 ppm for males (equivalent to 144 mg/kg bwt/day) and 1500 ppm (equivalent to 47.5 mg/kg bwt/day) for females. In addition, subchronic (90-day) feeding studies were conducted in rats, mice, and dogs. Doses evaluated in the rat study were 0, 300, 1000, 2500, and 5000 ppm.  The NOEL was 1000 ppm (equivalent to 60.5 and 69.0 mg/kg bwt/day, respectively for males and females). Effects observed at 2500 ppm included high plasma protein, albumin, calcium, low chloride, and increased liver, kidney and cecum weights.  In females at 2500 ppm, increased activated partial thromboplastin time and globulin, and increased liver, kidney and cecum weights were observed. Doses evaluated in the mouse study were 0, 300, 1000, 300, and 7000 ppm.  The NOEL was 1000 ppm (equivalent to 176 mg/kg bwt/day) for males and 300 ppm (equivalent to 61.0 mg/kg bwt/day) for females. Effects included increased liver weights and the presence of periportal hypertrophy in males at 3000 ppm and and increased liver weight observed in females at 1000 ppm. Doses evaluated in the dog study were 0, 500, 3000 and 25,000 ppm in males and 0, 500, 3000 and 15,000 ppm in females.  The NOEL was 3000 ppm (equivalent to 90.3 and 89.8 mg/kg bwt/day, respectively for males and females). At the high doses, effects included decreased weight gain and food intake as well as increased kidney weights in males, and progressive increase of alkaline phosphatase in both sexes.

   5.  Chronic toxicity. An 18-month oncogenicity study was conducted in mice with dietary concentrations of 0, 600, 1800 and 5400 ppm for males and 0, 300, 1000, and 3000 ppm for females.    The systemic NOEL was 600 ppm (77.6 mg/kg bwt/day) for males based on non-neoplastic changes in the kidney and liver. The systemic NOEL was 1000 ppm (167 mg/kg bwt/day) for females based on reduced body weights and food consumption. There was no evidence of carcinogenicity.

      A 2-year chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study was conducted in rats with dietary concentrations of 0, 200, 1000 and 5000 ppm technical pyriofenone.  The systemic NOEL was 1000 ppm (36.4 mg/kg bwt/day) for males based on reduced body weight gains and non-neoplastic changes in the kidney, liver, and mesenteric lymph nodes. The systemic NOEL was 200 ppm (9.13 mg/kg bwt/day) for females based on reduced body weight and non-neoplastic changes in the kidney. There was no evidence of carcinogenicity.

      A 52-week chronic toxicity study was conducted in dogs with dietary concentrations of 0, 500, 3000 and 25,000 ppm for males and 0, 500, 3000, and 15,000 ppm for females.  The NOEL was 3000 ppm (83.5 and 86.2 mg/kg bwt/day for males and females, respectively). The LOEL was 25,000 ppm (701 mg/kg bwt/day) for males and 15,000 ppm (448 mg/kg bwt/day) for females based decreased weight gain, decreased food intake, and increased kidney weights observed for the males and progressive increase of alkaline phosphatase observed in both sexes.

   6. Animal metabolism. The metabolism of pyriofenone in rats and goats is adequately understood. Pyriofenone is rapidly excreted in the urine and feces and was extensively metabolized to a number of components through a number of metabolic pathways including glucuronidation. There are no significant qualitative differences between rat and ruminant metabolic pathways.

   7. 	Metabolite toxicology. No toxicologically significant metabolites were detected in plant or animal metabolism studies. The residue of concern for tolerance setting purposes is the parent compound. Consequently, there is no additional concern for toxicity of metabolites.

   8. 	Endocrine disruption. The submitted studies include evaluation of the potential effects on reproduction and development and an evaluation of the pathology of the endocrine organs following short or long-term exposure. The data demonstrate no treatment-related effects on the endocrine system.

   9. 	Immunotoxicity. Four-week immunotoxicity studies were conducted in female rats and mice.  Dietary doses up to 20,000 ppm were evaluated in the rat study.  There was no effect on the immune system at any dose tested.  The NOEL was greater than 20,000 ppm (>=1690mg/kg bwt/day). Dietary doses up to 7000 ppm were evaluated in the mouse study.  There was no effect on the immune system at any dose tested.  The NOEL was greater than 7000 ppm (>=1270mg/kg bwt/day).

C. Aggregate Exposure

   1. Dietary exposure. Exposure assessments were conducted to evaluate the potential risk due to dietary exposure of the U.S. population to residues of pyriofenone.  For acute dietary exposure, an Acute Reference Dose (aRfD) is not identified for Pyriofenone since there was no evidence of initial acute effects in the acute oral or short-term toxicity studies, or the developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits.  Furthermore, effects in the acute neurotoxicity study were seen only at the limit dose level of 2000 mg/kg/day.  No initial acute effects were seen in the 90-day neurotoxicity study.
      For chronic dietary exposure, the chronic reference dose (cRfD) is 0.0913 mg/kg bwt/day, based on the NOAEL from the rat combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study (9.13 mg/kg bwt/day) and dividing by an uncertainty factor of 100.  The chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) is also 0.0913 mg/kg bwt/day since the FQPA safety factor is anticipated to be 1 for pyriofenone.

      i. Food. Tier 1 chronic dietary exposure analyses were conducted for pyriofenone in/on fruiting vegetables, cucurbit vegetables and berry and small fruit crop groups to determine the exposure contribution of these commodities to the diet and to ascertain the chronic risk potential.  The exposure estimates were based on the proposed tolerance level residues, current tolerance levels, average processing factors and a market share of 100% crop treated as a conservative assumption. The consumption data were from the USDA's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey/What We Eat in America NHANES/WWEIA dietary survey conducted in 2005-2010 (2 day food consumption data) using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Module (DEEM-FCID) software, version 4.02/10.00.

      Using all of the worst case exposure scenarios listed above, the Tier 1 chronic dietary exposure estimates resulted in an estimated exposure for the general U.S. population of 0.001010 mg/kg bwt/day.  This exposure corresponds to 1.1% of the cPAD of 0.0913 mg/kg bwt/day.  The highest exposure estimate calculated was for the subgroup children, 1-2 years.  This exposure was determined to be 0.003583 mg/kg bwt/day (3.9% of the cPAD).  The chronic dietary exposure analysis is summarized in the table below.

                                  Population
                               Exposure Estimate
                                   % of cPAD
                                   Subgroup
                              (mg/kg body wt/day)

                                U.S. Population
                                    0.001010
                                      1.1
                         All Infants (< 1 year old)
                                    0.001161
                                      1.3
                           Children (1-2 years old)
                                    0.003583
                                      3.9
                           Children (3-5 years old)
                                    0.002752
                                      3.0
                           Children (6-12 years old)
                                    0.001519
                                      1.7
                            Youth (13-19 years old)
                                    0.000722
                                      0.8
                           Females (13-49 years old)
                                    0.000790
                                      0.9
                           Adults (20-49 years old)
                                    0.000758
                                      0.8
                            Adults (50+ years old)
                                    0.000816
                                      0.9

      It can be concluded that long-term dietary exposure to pyriofenone through residues on treated fruiting vegetables should not be a cause for concern.

      ii. Drinking water. EPA previously conducted estimates for drinking water using the Tier 1 Cranberry Model for surface water and the PRZM GW model for ground water.  The chronic exposures of pyriofenone residues in surface and ground water were estimated to be 2.7 ppb for surface water and 3.9 ppb for ground water.  Thus the higher estimated value of 3.9 ppm was used as input into the DEEM/FCID model for drinking water.

   2. Non-dietary exposure. Based on the proposed uses for pyriofenone on the crops noted above, non-occupational exposure of pyriofenone would not be expected to the general population.  The only anticipated exposure route for the US population is via the diet (food and water only). Therefore, residential risk assessments for the incidental oral, dermal, and inhalation exposure routes are not required.

      Occupational post-application exposure is possible.  For dermal short-term exposure, no toxicity was found at 1000 mg/kg in a 28-day rat dermal toxicity study.  Therefore, in the absence of any hazard identified for dermal exposure, a dermal post-application risk assessment was not conducted.  Potential inhalation exposure was not considered since it is negligible when assessing re-entry risks.

      Occupational exposure for mixing/loading and applying pyriofenone was considered.  Potenial exposure was considered negligible since MOE were greater than 10,000 for all calculations.

D. Cumulative Effects

EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to pyriofenone and any other substances, and pyriofenone does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that pyriofenone has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

E. Safety Determination

   1.  U.S. population. Based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data and the conservative exposure assessments, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the aggregate exposure of residues of pyriofenone.

   2.  Infants and children. Based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data and the conservative exposure assessments, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from the aggregate exposure of residues of pyriofenone.

F. International Tolerances

Presently, there are no Codex maximum residue levels (MRLs) established for residues of pyriofenone on any crop.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 220 (Thursday, November 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64554-64556]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25126]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93562; File No. SR-BOX-2021-26]

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

November 12, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 28, 2021, BOX Exchange LLC (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing
with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule on
the BOX Options Market LLC (``BOX'') options facility. While changes to
the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon
filing, the changes will become operative on November 1, 2021. The text
of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of
the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the
Exchange's internet website at http://boxexchange.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section II.A. (QOO Order Fees) and
Section II.C. (QOO Order Rebate) of the BOX Fee Schedule. Specifically,
the Exchange proposes to amend Section II.A. (QOO Order Fees) to remove
the QOO Order fee cap of $75,000 per month per Broker Dealer and
Section II.C. (QOO Order Rebate) to remove the QOO Order rebate cap of
$30,000 per month per Broker Dealer.
    Currently, QOO Order fees for Broker Dealers on BOX are capped at
$75,000 per month per Broker Dealer. The Exchange proposes to eliminate
this monthly QOO Order fee cap for Broker Dealers. The fee cap was
intended to incentivize Broker Dealers to submit floor transactions on
the Exchange by capping manual transaction fees. The Exchange no longer
believes such fee cap is necessary because, as discussed herein, the
fee cap was initially established to incentivize Broker Dealers to
bring increased liquidity and order flow to the new BOX Trading Floor,
however the BOX Trading Floor is now well established and does not need
this incentive to encourage order flow to the Trading Floor.
    The Exchange also applies a QOO Order rebate cap of $30,000 per
month per Broker Dealer. Currently, Floor Brokers are eligible to
receive a $0.075 per contract rebate for all Broker Dealer and Market
Maker QOO Orders presented on the BOX Trading Floor.\5\ The rebate is
not applied to Public Customer executions, executions subject to the
Strategy QOO Order Fee Cap, or Broker Dealer executions where the
Broker Dealer is facilitating a Public Customer. The Exchange proposes
to remove the monthly rebate cap for Broker Dealer executions.\6\ The
Exchange notes that it is not making any other changes to the QOO Order
fees or the QOO Order Rebate. The QOO Order fees and QOO Order rebate
will be assessed and applied in the same manner as they are today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Floor Brokers are also eligible to receive a $0.05 per
contract rebate for all Professional Customer QOO Orders presented
on the BOX Trading Floor.
    \6\ The Exchange notes that BOX has removed the QOO Order rebate
cap in the past. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87704
(December 10, 2019), 84 FR 68499 (December 16, 2019) (SR-BOX-2019-
35).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed elimination of the QOO
Order fee cap of $75,000 per month per Broker Dealer and the QOO Order
rebate cap of $30,000 per month per Broker Dealer is reasonable,
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. As discussed above, the
Exchange established the QOO Order fee cap and rebate cap in an effort
to incentivize market participants to send order flow to the BOX
Trading Floor. The Exchange believes such incentive is no longer
necessary because the Exchange has a well-established trading floor and
no longer needs this incentive to encourage increased order flow to the
BOX Trading Floor.

QOO Order Fee Cap
    The Exchange established the QOO Order fee cap of $75,000 per month
per Broker Dealer in 2017 when the Exchange introduced fees for Manual
Transactions after the approval of the BOX Trading Floor.\8\ The
Exchange established the QOO Order fee cap for Broker Dealers to
incentivize Broker Dealers to bring increased liquidity and order flow
to the new BOX Trading Floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81292 (August 2,
2017), 82 FR 37144 (August 8, 2017) (SR-BOX-2016-48). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81504 (August 30, 2017), 82 FR
42195 (September 6, 2017) (SR-BOX-2017-28).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that removing the $75,000 monthly cap on QOO
Order Fees for Broker Dealers is reasonable and appropriate because, as
discussed above, these fee caps were introduced to provide incentives
for Broker Dealers to bring increased liquidity and order flow to the
BOX Trading Floor. The Exchange no longer believes such incentive is
necessary. As such, the Exchange believes the removal of the QOO Order
fee cap is reasonable.
    The Exchange believes the removal of the QOO Order fee cap is not
unfairly discriminatory because Public Customer, Market Maker, and
Professional Customer order fees are not subject to the fee cap.
Additionally, the QOO Order Fees will continue to be applied in the
same manner as they are today. Further, the Exchange believes that the
removal of the monthly QOO Order fee cap for Broker Dealer executions
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposal
applies to all similarly situated market participants.
QOO Order Rebate Cap
    BOX established the QOO Order Rebate program and the monthly rebate
cap in August 2017. As discussed in BOX's 2017 proposal to establish
the QOO Order Rebate program and rebate cap, the rebate was created to
incentivize order flow to the BOX Trading Floor. Unlike competing
exchanges, the Exchange does not offer a front-end order entry on the
BOX Trading Floor. With this, Participants have two possible means of
bringing orders to the Exchange's Trading Floor for possible execution:
(1) They can invest in the technology, systems and personnel to
participate on the Trading Floor and deliver the order to the Exchange
matching engines for validation and execution; or (2) they can utilize
the services of another Participant acting as a Floor Broker. The QOO
Order Rebate program was established to attract order flow by rewarding
Floor Brokers with rebates for directing qualifying orders to the BOX
Trading Floor.
    The Exchange believes that removing the rebate cap is reasonable
and appropriate as it will continue to allow Floor Brokers to price
their services at a level that would enable them to attract increased
QOO order flow from market participants who might otherwise utilize the
front-end order entry mechanism offered by the Exchange's competitors,
instead of incurring the cost in time and resources to install and
develop their own internal systems to deliver QOO orders directly to
the Exchange system. As such, the Exchange believes it is beneficial
from a competitive standpoint to continue to offer the rebate to the
executing Floor Broker on a QOO order without capping the dollar amount
allowed for the rebate. Further, the Exchange believes removing the
rebate cap will encourage Floor Brokers to bring additional QOO order
flow to the Exchange because Floor Brokers will be further incentivized
by the removal of the QOO Order rebate cap for these specific QOO
orders. Lastly, the Exchange believes the proposed change is reasonable
and appropriate, as the Exchange is allowing eligible Floor Brokers
greater opportunities to price their services related to the execution
of qualifying QOO transactions more competitively.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that removing the QOO Order
rebate cap is reasonable as a competing exchange with a similar rebate
program offered to Floor Brokers currently has a rebate cap twelve
times higher than the QOO Order rebate cap on BOX.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges, Qualified Contingent
Cross (``QCC'') Transactions Fees and Credits, Footnote 13 (stating
the ``maximum Floor Broker credit paid shall not exceed $375,000 per
month per Floor Broker firm.''). Similar to the Floor Broker Credit
for Executed QCC Transactions on NYSE Arca, the QOO Order Rebate on
BOX is applied to both sides of the paired order and is directed to
the Floor Broker, and not to the Participant who is assessed the QOO
Order fee. Finally, similar to the BOX QOO Rebate, the NYSE Arca QCC
credit is only applied when the Floor Broker executes the QCC Order
manually on the NYSE Arca trading floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the removal of the monthly rebate cap is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposal allows
all similarly situated Floor Brokers to benefit from the removal of the
QOO Order rebate cap. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that all
market participants would benefit from additional trading opportunities
generated from increased order flow due to the removal of the QOO Order
rebate cap.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at
other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in
response, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in
this market may impose any burden on competition is limited. For the
reasons discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed
changes do not impose an undue burden on competition. The Exchange does
not believe that removing the monthly fee cap of $75,000 per Broker
Dealer and the monthly rebate cap of $30,000 per month per Broker
Dealer will burden competition because the Exchange capped the Manual
Transaction Fees for QOO Orders and introduced the QOO Order monthly
rebate cap in an effort to incentivize market participants, but such
incentives are no longer necessary because the Exchange has a well-
established trading floor and no longer needs these incentives to
encourage increased order flow to the BOX Trading Floor.
    With respect to the QOO Order rebate cap, one of the Exchange's
competitors offers a QCC credit cap that is twelve times higher than
the Exchange's QOO Order rebate cap.\10\ In addition, as mentioned
above, the Floor Broker Credit for QCC Transactions on NYSE Arca is
similar to the QOO Order Rebate on BOX in that it is applied to both
sides of the paired order and is directed to the Floor Broker and not
to the Participant who is assessed the QOO Order fee. Moreover, similar
to the BOX QOO Rebate, the NYSE Arca QCC credit is only applied when
the Floor Broker executes the QCC Order manually on the NYSE Arca
trading floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. See also NASDQ PHLX (``Phlx'') Pricing Schedule,
Section 4 (stating the ``maximum QCC Rebate to be paid in a given
month will not exceed $550,000.''). The Exchange notes Phlx's QCC
Rebate cap is over eighteen times higher than the current QOO Order
rebate cap on BOX.

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

    Further, the Exchange does not believe that removing the QOO Order
rebate cap will impose an undue burden on intra-market competition
because all Floor Brokers will remain eligible to transact QOO Orders
and receive the same rebate. Further, the Exchange believes that the
removal of the rebate cap will promote competition by allowing Floor
Brokers to competitively price their services and for the Exchange to
remain competitive with other exchanges. As noted above, the Exchange
previously removed the monthly rebate cap in 2019.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain
competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\12\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2021-26 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2021-26. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2021-26, and should be submitted on
or before December 9, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-25126 Filed 11-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 30, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24597-24600]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10604]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0500; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-009-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by fuel system

reviews conducted by the manufacturer. This proposed AD would require a
one-time inspection of the wire assemblies of the tail fuel tank
transfer pumps to determine if metallic transitions are installed at
the wire harness breakouts, and corrective actions if necessary. We are
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 14, 2017.

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 http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone
562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0500.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0500; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: S[eacute]rj Harutunian, Aerospace
Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
California 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-0500;
Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-009-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a final
rule titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review,
Flammability Reduction, and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements''
(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards
for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements that rule
included Amendment 21-78, which established Special Federal Aviation
Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88'') at 14 CFR part 21. Subsequently, SFAR
88 was amended by: Amendment 21-82 (67 FR 57490, September 10, 2002;
corrected at 67 FR 70809, November 26, 2002) and Amendment 21-83 (67 FR
72830, December 9, 2002; corrected at 68 FR 37735, June 25, 2003, to
change ``21-82'' to ``21-83'').
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e.,
type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders
to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design
holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for
subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to
perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance
procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety
standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to
adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary
to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of
operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable
conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address
the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, combination of
failures, and unacceptable (failure) experience. For all three failure
criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions
taken that may mitigate the need for further action.
    This proposed AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by
the manufacturer. In addition, during one event on a Model MD-11
airplane that occurred during flight, a level 1 message ``TAIL L PUMP
OFF'' was annunciated; investigation of the wire bundles in the
horizontal stabilizer next to the tail fuel tank revealed burned and
broken wires, which showed severe signs of overheating and arcing. This
is considered a quality control issue because the type design harnesses
were not installed properly during the required SFAR 88 modifications.
    We are proposing this AD to detect and correct potential ignition
sources inside the tail fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable
vapors, could result in a fuel tank fire or explosion, and consequent
loss of the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A150, dated
October 6, 2016. The service information describes procedures for a
one-time detailed inspection of the wire assemblies of the tail fuel
tank transfer pumps to determine if metallic transitions are installed
at the wire harness breakouts, and corrective actions that include
repair and replacement of the wire assembly. 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 the ADDRESSES section.

Related Rulemaking

    On May 14, 2010, we issued AD 2010-11-12, Amendment 39-16317 (75 FR
30274, June 1, 2010) (``AD 2010-11-12''), for certain Model MD-11 and
MD-11F airplanes. AD 2010-11-12 requires a one-time inspection to
determine if metallic transitions are installed on wire harnesses of
the tail fuel tank transfer pumps, and to inspect for and repair
damaged wires. AD 2010-11-12 also requires repetitive inspections of
repaired areas; and a permanent modification of the wire harnesses if
metallic transitions are not installed, which would terminate the
repetitive inspections. AD 2010-11-12 also requires modifying the case
grounding for the alternate fuel pump of the tail fuel tank, the leak
detection thermal switch grounding for the number 2 engine, and wire
braid grounding in the empennage and number 2 engine inlet. We issued
AD 2010-11-12 to prevent insufficient grounding of the fuel pump,
which, in combination with an electrical failure within the fuel pump
and a compromised electrical bond, could cause a fuel tank ignition,
resulting in consequent fire or explosion.
    On January 3, 2011, we issued AD 2011-02-01, Amendment 39-16574 (76
FR 1983, January 12, 2011) (``AD 2011-02-01''), for certain Model MD-11
and MD-11F airplanes. AD 2011-02-01 requires a one-time inspection to
detect damage of the wire assemblies of the tail fuel tank fuel system,
a wiring change, and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2011-02-01
also requires, for certain airplanes, a general visual inspection for
correct installation of the self-adhering high-temperature electrical
insulation tape; installation of a wire assembly support bracket and
routing wire assembly; changing of certain wire supports; and
installation of a wire protection bracket. We issued AD 2011-02-01 to
detect and correct a potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks,
which, in combination with flammable vapors, could result in a fuel
tank fire or explosion, and consequent loss of the airplane.
    This proposed AD would not supersede or terminate the actions
required by AD 2010-11-12 and AD 2011-02-01. Certain airplanes
identified in the related rulemaking may not have the correct wire
harness with metallic transitions installed; therefore this proposed AD
would address the unsafe condition on those airplanes.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.
    The phrase ``corrective actions'' is used in this proposed AD.
``Corrective actions'' are actions that correct or address any
condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for
example, repairs.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 110 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.........................  4 work-hours x $85 per hour              $0            $340         $37,400
                                      = $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs/
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these repairs/replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair.....................................  9 work-hours x $85 per hour = $765.              $0            $765
Replacement................................  16 work-hours x $85 per hour =               57,526          58,886
                                              $1,360.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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) 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, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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 (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2017-0500; Directorate Identifier
2017-NM-009-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 14, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Boeing Company Model MD-11 and MD-11F
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A150, dated October 6, 2016.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28; Fuel.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct potential
ignition sources inside the tail fuel tank, which, in combination
with flammable vapors, could result in a fuel tank fire or
explosion, and consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) One-Time Inspection and Corrective Actions

    Within 27 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a one-
time detailed inspection of the wire assemblies of the tail fuel
tank transfer pumps to determine if metallic transitions are
installed at the wire harness breakouts, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-
28A150, dated October 6, 2016. If metallic transitions are
installed, no further action is required by this paragraph. If
metallic transitions are not installed, do the corrective actions
required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable,
except as required by paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this
AD.
    (1) Repair any affected wire assembly before further flight, in
accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A150, dated October 6, 2016, or
replace any affected wire assembly with a new assembly before
further flight, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A150, dated
October 6, 2016. If the replacement is done, no further action is
required for that wire assembly only.
    (2) Within 24 months after accomplishment of the repair required
by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: Replace any repaired wire assembly
with a new assembly, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A150, dated
October 6, 2016.

(h) Service Information Exceptions

    (1) Where Part 4.1.f. of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A150, dated October 6, 2016,
specifies ``CONTROLLER FUEL SYSTEM--ADJUSTMENT/TEST refer to MD-11,
AMM (Airplane Maintenance Manual) 28-28-01 as an accepted
procedure'': Adjust and test the controller fuel system. If the test
fails do corrective actions, repeat the test, and do applicable
corrective actions until the system passes the test.
    (2) Where Part 4.1.g. of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A150, dated October 6, 2016,
specifies ``OPERATIONAL TEST OF THE FILL SHUTOFF VALVE CONTROLLER
refer to MD-11 AMM 26-21--02, as an accepted procedure'': Do the
operational test of the part. If the part fails the test, do
corrective actions, repeat the test, and do applicable corrective
actions until the part passes the test.
    (3) Where Part 4.1.h. of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A150, dated October 6, 2016,
specifies ``SWITCH, PUMP LOW PRESSURE--ADJUSTMENT/TEST, refer to MD-
11 AMM 28-44-01, as an accepted procedure'': Do the operational test
of the part. If the part fails the test, do corrective actions,
repeat the test, and do applicable corrective actions until the part
passes the test.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance
with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or
local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. To be approved,
the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation
must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval
must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs
(i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact S[eacute]rj
Harutunian, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA,
Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California
90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 17, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-10604 Filed 5-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 174 (Thursday, September 8, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62022-62024]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21148]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 174 / Thursday, September 8, 2016 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9068; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-067-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracks in
horizontal stabilizer lower skins. This proposed AD would require
repetitive inspections for cracking of the horizontal stabilizer lower
skin, and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD also
provides actions that would terminate certain repetitive inspections.
We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in horizontal
stabilizer lower skins resulting in reduced local stiffness of the
horizontal stabilizer, which can cause heavy vibration leading to loss
of structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 24,
2016.

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 http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box
3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It
is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9068.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9068; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gaetano Settineri, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6577; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-9068;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-067-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received reports of approximately 90 cracks in horizontal
stabilizer lower skins with most of them occurring between stabilizer
station (SSTA) 111.10 and 166.30. Ten operators reported cracks on 18
airplanes outside this range with 14 of them inboard of SSTA 111.10.
The cracks range in length from 0.25 inch to 3.75 inches, and the
airplanes had between 12,670 and 69,569 total flight cycles.
    The cracks started on the outer surface of the horizontal
stabilizer lower skin where the chem-milled edge aligns with the edge
of the lower flange of the rear spar. The cracks grew parallel to the
rear spar. High secondary bending stresses due to compression buckling
of the skins and sonic fatigue can cause the cracks to grow. Cracks
have also started from the fastener line nearest the chem-milled step.
    This horizontal stabilizer lower skin cracking, if not corrected,
could result in reduced local stiffness of the horizontal stabilizer,
which can cause heavy vibration leading to loss of structural integrity
of the horizontal stabilizer.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-55-1059,
Revision 1, dated April 6, 2016 (``SASB 737-55-1059 R1''). The service
information describes procedures for doing inspections of the
horizontal stabilizer lower skin, and repairs. The service information
also describes procedures for doing actions that would terminate
certain repetitive inspections. 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 the
ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information

and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to
exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service
Information. For information on the procedures and compliance times,
see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9068.
    The phrase ``related investigative actions'' is used in this
proposed AD. Related investigative actions are follow-on actions that
(1) are related to the primary action, and (2) further investigate the
nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD
could include, for example, inspections.
    The phrase ``corrective actions'' is used in this proposed AD.
Corrective actions correct or address any condition found. Corrective
actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    SASB 737-55-1059 R1, specifies to contact the manufacturer for
certain instructions, but this proposed AD would require accomplishment
of repair methods, modification deviations, and alteration deviations
in one of the following ways:
     In accordance with a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have
authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 270 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost     Cost per product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.......................  4 work-hours x $85             $0   $340 per inspection   $91,800 per
                                    per hour = $340 per                 cycle.                inspection cycle.
                                    inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                      Estimated Costs for Optional Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Action                            Labor cost             Parts cost        Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification...........................  Up to 51 work-hours per                $721   Up to $5,056 per
                                          stabilizer x $85 per hour =                   stabilizer.
                                          $4,335.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that
would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We
have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these
repairs:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Action                            Labor cost           Parts cost        Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skin slice repair........................  Up to 438 work-hours x $85            $0  Up to $37,230.
                                            per hour = $37,230.
External doubler repair..................  26 work-hours x $85 per               $0  $2,210.
                                            hour = $2,210.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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) 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, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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 (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-9068; Directorate Identifier
2016-NM-067-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 24, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -
500 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-55-1059, Revision 1,
dated April 6, 2016 (``SASB 737-55-1059 R1'').

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55; Horizontal
stabilizer.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in horizontal
stabilizer lower skins. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
cracks in horizontal stabilizer lower skins resulting in reduced
local stiffness of the stabilizer, which can cause heavy vibration
leading to loss of structural integrity of the horizontal
stabilizer.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspections, Related Investigative Actions, and Corrective Actions
for Group 1, Configuration 1 Airplanes

    For Group 1, Configuration 1 airplanes, as identified in SASB
737-55-1059 R1: Except as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD,
at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,''
of SASB 737-55-1059 R1, do a detailed inspection for cracking of the
horizontal stabilizer lower skin; and do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-55-1059 R1, except as
specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat
the inspection of the horizontal stabilizer lower skin, if
applicable, thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of SASB 737-55-1059 R1. Options
specified in SASB 737-55-1059 R1, for accomplishing the inspections
are acceptable for the corresponding requirements of this paragraph
provided that the inspections are done at the applicable times in
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of the SASB 737-55-1059 R1.

(h) Inspections, Related Investigative Actions, and Corrective Actions
for Group 1, Configuration 2 Airplanes

    For Group 1, Configuration 2 airplanes, as identified in SASB
737-55-1059 R1: Except as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD,
at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,''
of SASB 737-55-1059 R1, do the actions specified in paragraphs
(h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD; and do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-55-1059 R1, except as
specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat
the inspections specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3)
of this AD, if applicable, thereafter at the applicable intervals
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of SASB 737-55-1059 R1.
Options specified in SASB 737-55-1059 R1, for accomplishing the
inspections are acceptable for the corresponding requirements of
this paragraph provided that the inspections are done at the
applicable times in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of SASB 737-55-
1059 R1.
    (1) Do a high frequency eddy current inspection for cracking of
the skin around any repair done as specified in the structural
repair manual or any external doubler repair, and a detailed
inspection for any loose or any missing fastener of repaired
doublers.
    (2) Do a detailed inspection for cracking of the inspar lower
skin of the horizontal stabilizer in unrepaired areas.
    (3) Do a low frequency eddy current inspection for cracking of
the forward fastener row of any external doubler repair.

(i) Service Information Exceptions

    (1) Where SASB 737-55-1059 R1, specifies a compliance time
``after the Revision 1 date of this service bulletin,'' this AD
requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the
effective date of this AD.
    (2) If any cracking, corrosion, hole elongation, or loose or
missing fastener is found during any inspection required by this AD,
and SASB 737-55-1059 R1, specifies to contact Boeing for repair
instructions: Before further flight, repair the cracking, corrosion,
hole elongation, loose or missing fasteners using a method approved
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this
AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Gaetano
Settineri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA,
Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:
425-917-6577; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 24, 2016.
John P. Piccola, Jr.,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-21148 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P