[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67042-67044]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26436]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0452; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-185-AD;
Amendment 39-18013; AD 2014-22-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This AD was
prompted by a determination that more restrictive airworthiness
limitations are necessary. This AD requires revising the maintenance or
inspection program as applicable. We are issuing this AD to prevent a
safety-significant latent failure (which is not annunciated) which, in
combination with one or more other specific failures or events, would
result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 17, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 17,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0452 or in person at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus,
Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44
51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A318,
A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on July 18, 2014 (79 FR 41938).
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0148, dated July 16, 2013 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition all Airbus Model A318,
A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations for Airbus aeroplanes are
currently published in Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS)
documents. The airworthiness limitations applicable to the
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR) were previously
specified in AIRBUS A318/A319/A320/A321 CMR document referenced AI/
ST4/993.436/88.
    DGAC France issued AD F-2005-101 [(http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2005_5886_F20051010tb_superseded.pdf/AD_F-2005-101_2)]
(EASA approval 2005-5886) to require compliance with the maintenance
tasks as specified in that document.
    Since that [DGAC France] AD was issued, the CMR tasks are
specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3, which is
approved by EASA. The original issue of this document introduced
more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness
limitations. Failure to comply with the maintenance requirements
contained in this document could result in an unsafe condition.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD supersedes DGAC
France AD F-2005-101 and requires the implementation of the
instructions and airworthiness limitations as specified in Airbus
A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3 Revision 01.

    The unsafe condition is a safety-significant latent failure (which
is not annunciated) which, in combination with one or more other
specific failures or events, would result in a hazardous or
catastrophic failure condition. You may examine the MCAI in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0452-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 41938, July 18,
2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 41938, July 18, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 41938, July 18, 2014).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 851 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $72,335, or $85 per product.

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; 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.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0452; 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 AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2014-22-08 Airbus: Amendment 39-18013. Docket No. FAA-2014-0452;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-185-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective December 17, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122
airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -
133 airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -
233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -
231, and -232 airplanes; certificated in any category; all
manufacturer serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits
and Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive
airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to
prevent a safety-significant latent failure (which is not
annunciated) which, in combination with one or more other specific
failures or events, would result in a hazardous or catastrophic
failure condition.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating
Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS)
Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 1,
dated June 15, 2012. The initial compliance time for accomplishing
the tasks specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3, CMR,
Revision 1, dated June 15, 2012, is at the applicable time specified
in the Record of Revisions of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3,
CMR, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2012; or within 30 days after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After accomplishing the revisions required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may
be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your

request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards
District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace
Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2013-0148,
dated July 16, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found
in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0452-0002.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision
1, dated June 15, 2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this 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.
    (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, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 28, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-26436 Filed 11-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


EPA Registration Division contact: Susan Stanton;<PHONE_NUMBER>

Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petitions

Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)

Petitions 5E4491 (Mint) and 7E7247 (Hops)

EPA has received pesticide petitions (PP#s 5E4491 and 7E7247) from
Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East,
Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, 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 180.262 by establishing tolerances for residues of
ethoprop in or on the raw agricultural commodities mint, hay (PP#5E4491)
and hop, dried cone (PP#7E7247) at 0.02 parts per million (ppm).  EPA
has determined that the petitions contain 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 petitions. Additional data
may be needed before EPA rules on the petitions.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism.

The qualitative nature of the residue in plants and animals is
adequately understood. The metabolic pathway for degradation of ethoprop
primarily involves hydrolysis of the S-propyl groups as well as
formation of the O-methyl and S-methyl metabolites. The residues of
concern for tolerance enforcement are ethoprop per se while the residues
of concern for risk assessment are ethoprop
((O-ethyl-S,S-dipropylphosphorodithioate),
O-ethyl-S-methyl-S-propylphosphoro- dithioate and
O-ethyl-O-methyl-S-propylphosphorothioate. For the cancer assessment two
additional metabolites are added, O-ethyl-S-propylphosphorothioate and
S,S-dipropylphosphoro- dithioate.

	2. Analytical method. Adequate methods for purposes of enforcement of
ethoprop tolerances in plant commodities, ruminant tissues and milk are
available.

	3. Magnitude of residues. Five residue trials were conducted in Idaho,
Michigan and Oregon to determine ethoprop residue levels in mint. These
states represent approximately 83% of the cumulative production areas of
mint in the United States. Ethoprop residue levels in mint hay were all
<0.01 ppm. A processing study was conducted in Oregon. This state
represents 37% of the mint grown in the United States.  A concentration
factor of 4X was seen for ethoprop residues in mint oil. However, since
there are no measurable residues of ethoprop in mint based on the
residue trials there is no need for a ethoprop tolerance in mint oil.

Three hop residue trials were conducted in Idaho, Oregon and Washington,
covering the appropriate EPA regions.  Hops were harvested 118 to 135
days after application. Analysis of the hops showed that the ethoprop
residues in all samples were below the lowest level of method validation
(LLMV) of 0.02 ppm except for the Oregon trial where residues in one
sample were below the LLMV and residues in the second sample were just
quantifiable at 0.021 ppm. However, in the Oregon trial the test
substance was accidentally overlapped by approximately 14% which may
have contributed to the detectable residues.>

B. Toxicological Profile

1. Acute toxicity. The acute oral LD50 was 47 milligrams/ kilograms/
body weight (mg/kg bw) for both male and female rats.  The acute rat
dermal LD50 was 1280 mg/kg bw for male and 424 mg/kg bw for females. The
acute rabbit dermal LD50 was 8.5 mg/kg bw for male and 424 mg/kg bw for
females. The acute inhalation LC50 was between 0.12 and 0.25 mg/L for
male and female rats.  Due to its acute toxicity, skin and eye
irritation for ethoprop could not be evaluated in rabbits. The dermal
sensitization study in guinea pigs indicated that ethoprop is a moderate
skin sensitizer.

	2. Genotoxicty.  The potential for genetic toxicity of ethoprop was
evaluated in several in vitro and in vivo assays. Ethoprop is devoid of
mutagenic activity in the Ames and Chinese Hamster Ovary-HGPRT assays
with and without metabolic activation.  Ethoprop was also negative in a
DNA repair assay with primary rat hepatocytes.  A negative response was
observed in both the in vitro chromosome aberration and in vitro sister
chromatid exchange assays without metabolic activation while a weakly
positive result was observed in both assays in the presence of metabolic
activation.  The weakly positive effect was observed only at cytotoxic
concentrations and was considered to be a secondary effect of
cytotoxicity.  In addition, no biologically significant dose-response
was observed in either assay.  A rat bone marrow cytogenic assay was
clearly negative in both sexes under acute and subchronic treatment
conditions.  A dominant lethal study in rats demonstrated that ethoprop
was not clastogenic.  Therefore, the weight of evidence clearly
demonstrates that ethoprop is not genotoxic.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity.  Ethoprop has been tested
for reproductive toxicity in rats (2 studies) and developmental toxicity
in both rats and rabbits (2 studies in each species).  In a
three-generation reproduction study, 10 male and 20 female Fisher 344
rats were administered 0, 60.5, 131, or 262 ppm ethoprop in the diet.
No NOEL for general toxicity to the parental animals was observed due to
decreased body weight gains at all doses tested.  No reproductive
effects were noted at any dose level tested.  For the offspring, a NOEL
of 131 ppm was established based on effects seen on the Lactation Index.
 In a two-generation reproduction study, 28 Sprague-Dawley rats per sex
per dose were administered 0, 1, 30, or 150 ppm (reduced from 300 ppm
due to excessive toxicity) of ethoprop in the diet.  The NOEL for
general toxicity in the adult animals was 1 ppm based on plasma and
brain cholinesterase inhibition at 30 ppm.  No reproductive effects were
noted at any dose level tested.  For the offspring, a NOEL of 30 ppm was
obtained (body weight effects at the top dose), indicating no increased
risk to the offspring in the absence of indications of overt adult
toxicity.

In a developmental study in rats, ethoprop was administered by gavage at
doses of 0, 0.16, 1.6, or 16 mg/kg for gestation days 6-15.  At 16
mg/kg/day, decreased body weight gain during gestation and increased
incidence of fetal wastage were observed.  At 1.6 mg/kg/day, a slight
increase in extra ribs (11 fetuses versus 2 in the controls) was
observed.  The significance was difficult to interpret due to the low
number of litters delivered at the top dose (12 litters versus 22 in
controls). A clear NOEL for developmental toxicity was established at
0.16 mg/kg/day.  In a second developmental study, rats were dosed by
gavage at 0, 2, 9, or 18 mg/kg/day on days 6 through 15 of gestation.
The maternal NOEL was 2 mg/kg/day and the LOEL was 9 mg/kg/day based on
a slight but statistically significant depression of body weight gain at
9 mg/kg/day during the first 3 days of treatment.  The developmental
toxicity NOEL was 18 mg/kg/day due to the absence of any toxicological
effects on the fetus.

In a rabbit developmental study, ethoprop was administered by gavage at
doses of 0, 0.125, 0.5, or 2 mg/kg for gestation days 6-18. No evidence
of maternal or fetal toxicity was observed in the study. A NOEL for
maternal and developmental toxicity of 2 mg/kg/day was established.  In
a second developmental study, rabbits were dosed by gavage at 0, 0.625,
1.25, or 2.5 mg/kg/day on days 6 through 18 of gestation.  No evidence
of maternal or fetal toxicity were observed in this study despite the
fact that in a previously conducted rangefinding study, maternal
mortality was observed at doses of 5 and 10 mg/kg/day. A NOEL for
maternal and developmental toxicity of 2.5 mg/kg/day was established.

Therefore, based on the multi-generation reproduction studies in rats,
ethoprop is not considered a reproductive toxicant and shows no evidence
of endocrine effects.  The data from the developmental toxicity studies
on ethoprop show no evidence of a potential for developmental effects
(malformations or variations) at doses that are not maternally toxic.
Based on the most current developmental toxicity studies, the NOEL for
maternal toxicity in rats was 2 mg/kg/day and for developmental toxicity
was 18 mg/kg/day.  In rabbits the NOEL for both maternal and
developmental toxicity was 2.5 mg/kg/day.

	4. Subchronic toxicity.   The subchronic toxicity of ethoprop has been
studied in three 21-day dermal studies in rabbits and a 5 month dog
study.  In a 21-day dermal study in rats, the animals were dosed at 0,
0.3, 1.0 or 10 mg/kg/day applied in mineral oil to the intact dorsal
dermal surface. The animals appeared healthy throughout the study with
no significant effects on body weights, food consumption, organ weights
or macroscopic or microscopic findings.  Both sexes had lower plasma and
RBC cholinesterase levels at 1.0 and 10 mg/kg/day.  The NOEL was
therefore 0.3 mg/kg/day.

In a 21-day dermal study in rabbits, the animals were dosed at 0, 0.05,
0.1, or 1.0 mg/kg/day in 1% aqueous methyl cellulose.  There were no
effects of treatment other than on cholinesterase levels.  Plasma and
RBC cholinesterase levels were significantly reduced at 1 mg/kg/day and
brain cholinesterase was reduced at doses of 0.1 and 1 mg/kg/day.
Therefore, the NOEL in this study was 0.05 mg/kg/day. In a second 21-day
dermal study in rabbits, the animals were dosed at 0, 0.03, 0.1, or 1
mg/kg/day in 4% carboxymethylcellulose in distilled water on the shaved
dorsal skin.  On the basis of reduced brain, RBC and plasma
cholinesterase in both sexes at 1.0 mg/kg/day, the NOEL in the study was
0.3 mg/kg/day.

In a 5 month dog study, dogs were administered capsules containing
ethoprop dissolved in corn oil at doses of 0.01, 0.025 and 1.0 mg/kg/day
for five months.  Significant decreases in plasma cholinesterase were
seen in both sexes at 0.025 and 1.0 mg/kg/day.  Significant decreases in
red blood cell cholinesterase were seen only in males at 1.0 mg/kg/day.
There were no effects noted on brain cholinesterase.  No other changes
were noted in any of the other parameters evaluated in the study.  The
NOEL based on the plasma cholinesterase depression was 0.01 mg/kg/day.

Therefore, as previously demonstrated the rabbit is more sensitive to
the cholinesterase inhibiting properties of ethoprop and is not
considered to be an appropriate model for dermal exposure in humans.
The NOEL in the rat dermal study was 1 mg/kg/day.  In a subchronic dog
study, the NOEL based on plasma cholinesterase depression was 0.01
mg/kg/day.

	5. Chronic toxicity.  Three two-year rat chronic toxicity/oncogenicity
studies, two 18 to 24 month mouse oncogenicity studies, and a 1-year dog
study, were performed with ethoprop. In a combined ethoprop chronic
toxicity/oncogenicity study in F-344 rats, the animals were exposed in
utero and during nursing by administering the test diet at
concentrations of 0, 60.5, 131, and 262 ppm to the F0 parents.  The F1
generation that made up the 2-year phase of the study received doses of
0, 4.5, 9, or 18 ppm for weeks 0-12 and doses of 0, 49, 98, or 196 ppm
from weeks 13-109.  The only finding at the low dose of 49 ppm was a
depression of serum and brain cholinesterase.  The effects noted at 98
and 196 ppm that exhibited a dose response relationship included
depression of serum and brain cholinesterase and reduced body weights.
No histopathological or tumorogenic effects were observed at any dose
level.

In a second combined chronic toxicity/oncogenicity study, Fischer 344
rats were administered doses of 0, 1.0, 10.0, or 100.0 ppm in the diet
for 24 months.  A NOEL of 1.0 ppm was established in both sexes based on
plasma and RBC cholinesterase depression at 10.0 and 100.0 ppm.  Brain
cholinesterase inhibition was noted only at a dose of 100 ppm in both
sexes.  No histopathological or tumorogenic effects were observed at any
dose level.

In a third combined chronic toxicity/oncogenicity study, Sprague-Dawley
rats were administered dose of 0, 1, 60, and 400 ppm in the diet for 104
weeks.  A NOEL of 1 ppm (0.05 mg/kg/day) was established in both sexes
based on plasma, RBC, and brain cholinesterase depression at 60.0 and
400.0 ppm.  No indication of carcinogenicity was observed at any dose
level.

Male and female B6C3F1 mice were administered ethoprop in the diet at 0,
0.2, 2 or 30 ppm for 104 weeks.  RBC, plasma, and brain cholinesterase
levels were inhibited at dose levels of 2 and 30 ppm.  A NOEL of 0.2 ppm
was established in the study.  A slight increase in hepatocellular
carcinomas in females at 30 ppm was considered to be within normal
variability and was not considered to be the result of treatment. In a
second mouse study, male and female B6C3F1 mice were administered
ethoprop in the diet at 0, 15, 30 or 60 ppm for 78 weeks.  RBC and
plasma cholinesterase levels were inhibited at all dose levels.  There
was no evidence of any histopathological effect, including oncogenicity,
associated with treatment at any dose level.

A chronic dog study was also conducted in which ethoprop was
administered via capsule to beagle dogs for 52 weeks at doses of 0,
0.025, 1, and 10 mg/kg/day.  One high dose animal was sacrificed in a
moribund condition.  Plasma cholinesterase inhibition was seen at doses
of 1 and 10 mg/kg/day.  RBC and brain cholinesterase and hepatotoxicity
were observed at 10 mg/kg/day.

All of the available data demonstrate that ethoprop is not carcinogenic
in animals (rats, mice or dogs).  The major effect of ethoprop is
cholinesterase inhibition.  The dog study established the lowest NOEL of
0.01 mg/kg/day based on plasma cholinesterase depression.

6. Neurotoxicity.  The possibility of acute delayed neurotoxicity and
acute and subchronic neurotoxicity of ethoprop has been studied.  The
acute delayed neurotoxicity of ethoprop has been investigated in adult
domestic hens.  Sixty three hens were administered a single 6.5 mg/kg
dose in corn oil.  To protect against acute cholinergic effects, these
hens also received either atropine or atropine and 2-PAM immediately
prior to and at 24 hour intervals after the ethoprop dose.  At study
termination, tissues were perfused in situ and sections of the brain,
spinal cord, and sciatic and tibial nerve were processed for
histopathological examination.  Ethoprop did not produce acute delayed
neurotoxicity.

In a rat study groups of 17 male and 17 female Sprague Dawley rats were
treated once by gavage with ethoprop at dose levels of 0, 5, 50, or 75
mg/kg bw for males and 0, 5, 25, or 50 mg/kg bw for females in order to
assess its potential acute neurotoxicity by evaluating motor activity,
functional observation battery (FOB), and cholinesterase depression. The
NOEL based on the FOB results was 5 mg/kg in both sexes.  Based on motor
activity, the NOEL was 5 mg/kg in males and 25 mg/kg in females.  Based
on RBC cholinesterase activity, the NOEL was 5 mg/kg in males and below
5 mg/kg in females.  The NOEL for plasma cholinesterase was 5 mg/kg for
both sexes.  The NOEL for Day 15 brain cholinesterase effects and
neuropathologic effects is greater than 75 mg/kg in males and greater
than 50 mg/kg in females.

Groups of 27 male and 27 female Sprague Dawley rats were treated in the
diet with ethoprop at dose levels of 0, 4, 40, or 400 ppm for 3 months
in order to assess its potential subchronic neurotoxicity by evaluating
motor activity, functional observation battery (FOB), and cholinesterase
depression. The NOEL based on the FOB results was 40 ppm in both sexes.
Based on motor activity, the NOEL was 40 ppm in males and 400 ppm in
females.  Based on plasma, RBC and brain cholinesterase activity, the
NOEL was 4 ppm in males and below 4 ppm in females.  The NOEL for
neuropathologic effects is greater than 400 ppm in both males and
females.

Therefore, ethoprop has been shown not to be an acute delayed
neurotoxicant.  Due to its cholinesterase inhibiting properties it does
lead to typical behavioral effects from acute and subchronic exposures.
Ethoprop, however, does not lead to any observable neuropathologic
effects.

	7. Animal metabolism.  Oral administration of ethoprop to the rat
results in rapid absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of
the residues. Excretion, which is essentially complete by 48 hours post
dose, is primarily in the urine with some in the feces as well as
respired air. Terminal elimination t1/2 is the blood was 92-135 hours.
Metabolism is by hydrolysis of the S-propyl groups followed by
conjugation.

	8. Metabolite toxicology.  Available data indicate that several of the
organophosphate metabolites of ethoprop have cholinesterase inhibiting
activity. Available data indicate that the toxicity of these metabolites
has been evaluated in the toxicity studies for the parent compound.
Therefore no additional toxicity studies were needed for metabolites.

	9. Endocrine disruption.  In the available toxicity studies on
ethoprop, there was no estrogen or androgen, mediated toxicity. When
additional appropriate screening and/or testing protocols being
considered under the Agency’s EDSP have been developed, ethoprop may
be subjected to further screening and/or testing to better characterize
effects related to endocrine disruption.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary Exposure.  There are no residential uses for ethoprop;
therefore aggregate exposure consists of dietary (food and drinking
water) exposures.  The acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) of 0.00025
mg/kg bw/day based on an acute NOAEL of 0.025 mg/kg bw/day with an
uncertainty factor of 100 was used to assess acute dietary exposure.
The chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) of 0.0001 mg/kg bw/day based
on a chronic NOAEL of 0.01 mg/kg bw/day with an uncertainty factor of
100 was used to assess chronic exposure. The chronic cancer assessment
was based on a Q* of 0.0281.

	i.Food. The current acute and chronic dietary assessments include all
of the current uses for ethoprop as well as the proposed new uses on
mint and hops. No significant contribution was seen from these new uses.
 The US Population utilized 28% of the aPAD (99.9th percentile) and 6%
of the cPAD.  The most highly exposed sub-population for the acute
assessment was Children 1-2 at 78% of the aPAD (99.9th percentile) and
All Infants for the chronic assessment at 15% of the cPAD. The chronic
cancer assessment showed exposure equivalent to a risk of 1.58 x 10-7.
These assessments included human exposure from both food and water.

	ii. Drinking Water.  US EPA’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for
Drinking Water Exposure and Risk Assessments was used to perform the
drinking water assessment.  This SOP uses a variety of tools to conduct
drinking water assessment.   These tools include water models such as
SCI-GROW, FIRST, PRZMS/EXAMS, and monitoring data.  If monitoring data
are not available then the models are used to predict potential residues
in surface and ground water and the highest is assumed to be the
drinking water residue.  In the case of ethoprop monitoring data do
exist and were used in the assessment. A concentration of 202 ppt from a
surface water monitoring study was used in the above assessment. As
noted, the dietary assessments given above included both food and water.

2.  Non-dietary Exposure. Since there are no residential uses of
ethoprop, there are no non-occupational risks from residential
exposures.

D. Cumulative Effects

Ethoprop is a member of the organophosphate class of insecticides. In
recent communications regarding the cumulative assessment of
organophosphate insecticides, EPA commented that it has completed its
assessment of the cumulative risks from the organophosphate (OP) class
of pesticides as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. In
addition, the individual OPs have also been subject to review through
the individual-chemical review process. The Agency’s review of
individual OPs has resulted in the issuance of Interim Reregistration
Eligibility Decisions (IREDs) for 22 OPs, interim Tolerance Reassessment
and Risk Management Decisions (TREDs) for 8 OPs, and a Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED) for one OP. EPA has concluded, after
completing its assessment of the cumulative risks associated with
exposures to all of the OPs (including ethoprop), that: (1) the
pesticides covered by the IREDs that were pending the results of the OP
cumulative assessment are indeed eligible for reregistration; and (2)
the pesticide tolerances covered by the IREDs and TREDs that were
pending the results of the OP cumulative assessment meet the safety
standard under Section 408(b)(2) of the FFDCA. Thus, with regard to the
OPs, EPA has fulfilled its obligations as to FFDCA tolerance
reassessment and FIFRA reregistration, other than product-specific
reregistration.

E.  Safety Determination

	1. US Population.  Using the conservative exposure assumptions
described above and based on the completeness of the toxicity data, it
can be concluded that aggregate exposure to residues of ethoprop present
a reasonable certainty of no harm.  Exposure from residues in crops and
water utilizes 28% of the aPAD and 6% of the cPAD.  EPA generally has no
concerns for exposures below 100% of the Population Adjusted Doses.  A
chronic cancer assessment indicates that total cancer exposure is
equivalent to a risk of 1.58x10-7. EPA generally has no concerns for
exposures below 3 X 10-6.  Drinking water is included in this
assessment. The conservative nature of these assessments demonstrates a
reasonable certainty of no harm will result from uses of ethoprop for
the US Population.

		2. Infants and children.  In assessing the potential for additional
sensitivity of infants and children to residues of ethoprop, the
available developmental toxicity and reproductive toxicity studies and
the potential for endocrine modulation by ethoprop were considered.
Developmental toxicity studies in two species indicate that ethoprop is
not a teratogen.  The 2 and 3 generation reproduction studies in rats
demonstrated that there were no adverse effects on reproductive
performance, fertility, fecundity, pup survival, or pup development.
Maternal and developmental NOELs and LOELS were comparable, indicating
no increase in susceptibility of developing organisms.  No evidence of
endocrine effects was noted in any study.  It is therefore concluded
that ethoprop poses no additional risk for infants and children and no
additional uncertainty factor is warranted.

FFDCA section 408 provides that an additional safety factor for infants
and children may be applied in the case of threshold effects.  Since, as
discussed in the previous section, the toxicology studies do not
indicate that young animals are any more susceptible than adult animals
and the fact that the current RfD already incorporates a 100X
uncertainty factor, an adequate margin of safety is therefore provided
by the RfD established by EPA.  In addition, ethoprop has no
endocrine-modulation characteristics as demonstrated by the lack of
endocrine effects in developmental, reproductive, subchronic, and
chronic studies. Therefore, no additional FQPA safety factor for infants
and children is warranted based on the completeness and reliability of
the database, the demonstrated lack of increased risk to developing
organisms, and the lack of endocrine-modulating effects.

Based on above conservative exposure assessments the total aggregate
exposure to ethoprop will utilize at most 78% of the acute RfD/PAD
(Children 1-2) and 15% of the chronic RfD/PAD (All Infants) even for
these most highly exposed population subgroup.  In addition, the cancer
assessment shows that the total exposure for the US Population is 1.58 x
10-7, well within the Agency’s level of concern of 3 x 10-6.

F. International Tolerances

Although many CODEX Maximum Residue Limits (MRL’s) have been
established for residues of ethoprop in/on crops there are no CODEX
MRL’s for ethoprop on mint or hops at this time.

 PAGE

 PAGE   8


[Federal Register: December 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 241)]
[Notices]
[Page 75599-75600]
[DOCID:fr15de06-120]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54910; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-93]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC.;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend NYSE Rule 607 Concerning
the Use of the Random Selection Method To Appoint Arbitrators in
Matters Not Involving Customers

December 11, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On October 24, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend Rule 607 relating to use
of the Random Selection Method to appoint arbitrators in matters not
involving customers. The proposed rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on November 9, 2006,\3\ and the Commission
received one comment letter on the proposal.\4\ This order approves the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 54694 (Nov. 2, 2005), 71 FR
65869 (Nov. 9, 2006).
    \4\ See letter from A. Daniel Woska, Esq., A. Daniel Woska &
Associates, PC, dated Nov. 14, 2006 (``Woska'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Under the Random List Selection methodology, the Director of
Arbitration sends parties a randomly generated list of five public
arbitrators for claims heard by a single arbitrator. If the claim is
heard by three arbitrators, the Director of Arbitration provides
parties a randomly generated list of 10 public arbitrators and another
list of five securities industry arbitrators. Each party is then
allocated strikes against these arbitrators.\5\ Currently, customers or
non-members may request in writing a Random List Selection within 45
days after they file a statement of claim. The parties also may agree
to this methodology provided that they notify the NYSE within this
timeframe.\6\ If parties do not request a Random List Selection, the
Director of Arbitration will select the arbitrator(s) and name a
chairman of each panel.\7\ NYSE Rule

607(c) also permits the NYSE to accommodate reasonable alternatives to
select arbitrators, provided that all parties agree on the methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NYSE Rule 607(c)(2)(i).
    \6\ NYSE Rule 607(c).
    \7\ NYSE Rule 607(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed amendments to NYSE Rule 607(c), the Random List
Selection methodology could be used in all arbitration matters not
involving customers if the claimant requests that methodology in
writing within 45 days after filing its statement of claim. The
proposed amendments would not change the ability of a customer to
request the Random Selection Method. The purpose of these amendments is
to allow non-member or member claimants to use the Random List
Selection method and to ensure that their choice of methodology for
arbitrator appointment would prevail.

III. Summary of Comment

    The Commission received one comment on the proposal.\8\ The
commenter believed that the proposed rule change would do little until
the NYSE addressed the ``quality of arbitrators'' and the requirement
that a securities industry arbitrator serve on arbitration panels. The
commenter also questioned the constitutionality of the NYSE arbitration
system.\9\ While the Commission appreciates these comments, we believe
they are outside the scope of this rule filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Woska.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act and, in particular, with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the NYSE's
rules be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.\10\ The
Commission believes that the proposed rule change should help to ensure
that members, member organizations, and non-members who choose to file
their arbitration claims with the NYSE are treated fairly and equitably
by expanding the availability of the Random Selection Method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\11\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2006-93), be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-21339 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61460-61461]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24741]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67966; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-117]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Offer
Members and Member Organizations the Ability To Pay a Regulatory Fine
Pursuant to an Installment Plan

October 2, 2012.
    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 September 26, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes a rule change to offer members and member
organizations the ability to pay a regulatory fine pursuant to an
installment plan, under certain conditions. The text of the proposed
rule change is available at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/nasdaqomxphlx/phlx, [sic] at the Exchange's principal office, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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
    Phlx is proposing to amend Rule 52 governing ``Fees, Dues and Other
Charges'' to offer members and member organizations the ability to pay
a regulatory fine pursuant to an installment plan, under certain
conditions. In order for a member or member organization to be eligible
to pay a regulatory fine via an installment plan, the fine under the
applicable offer of settlement\3\ must be $50,000 or more. A fine of
less than $50,000 is not eligible for the installment plan. When
submitting its offer of settlement, the member or member organization
must check the installment plan option on the election of payment form
included with the offer of settlement. A sample election of payment
form and offer of settlement are included in Exhibit 3 \4\ to this
proposed rule change. A down payment of twenty-five percent (25%) or
more of the total fine must be submitted with the signed offer of
settlement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Phlx Rule 960.7.
    \4\ The Commission notes that Exhibit 3 is an exhibit to the
proposed rule change, not to this Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After receipt of the offer of settlement and down payment, an
installment package, including a promissory note and payment schedule,
will be mailed to the member or member organization. A sample
promissory note and payment schedule are included in Exhibit 3 to this
proposed rule change. The member or member organization must then
submit an executed (signed and notarized) promissory note for the
unpaid balance of the fine, along with its first installment payment.
The term of the installment plan may not exceed four years after the
execution of the offer of settlement. The member or member organization
may elect monthly or quarterly payments.
2. Statutory Basis
    Phlx believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that the proposal is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. In addition, Phlx believes
that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of
Section 6(b)(6) and 6(b)(7) of the Act,\7\\\ which require an exchange
to provide fair procedures for the disciplining of members and persons
associated with members. Specifically, Phlx believes that the proposal
will promote the settlement of disciplinary cases by allowing members
and member organizations to make installment payments. Phlx believes
that settlement is a beneficial method of disciplining members and
member organizations because it imposes meaningful sanctions on the
member while avoiding the cost and uncertainty of a protracted
disciplinary proceeding. Phlx further believes that affording members
and member organizations with the opportunity to pay a regulatory fine
over a period of time may allow Phlx to impose higher fines in
appropriate circumstances and diminish the risk that sanctioned members
or member organizations will fail to pay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6) and (b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on

which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act\8\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of the filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)\10\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\11\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that Phlx may
offer members that are contemplating the execution of an offer of
settlement the option of entering into an installment arrangement as
soon as possible. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest as it will provide members the option of paying large
fines in installments. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-
day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change to be
operative upon filing with the Commission.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ For the purposes of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2012-117 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-Phlx-2012-117. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room 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 offices 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-Phlx-2012-117, and should be submitted on or before
October 30, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2012-24741 Filed 10-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 67 (Friday, April 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 20940]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07324]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2006-25764]

Petition for Extension of Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on February 24, 2023, Union
Pacific Railroad Company (UP) petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) for an extension of a waiver of compliance from
certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained
at 49 CFR parts 215 (Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards) and 232
(Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-passenger
Trains and Equipment; End of Train Devices). The relevant Docket Number
is FRA-2006-25764.
    Specifically, UP requests a waiver extension from 49 CFR 232.205,
Class 1 brake test--initial terminal inspection, and certain provisions
of part 215 related to the inspection of trains entering the United
States from Mexico at Calexico, California. UP seeks to continue to
move trains received in interchange from Mexico approximately 10.1
miles to the facility at El Centro, California, before an initial
terminal air brake test is performed. UP notes that the inspection
point at El Centro ``was designed and built . . . for the sole purpose
of inspecting and testing of equipment'' passing through the
interchange. Further, UP states that the facility ``supports
inspections and any repair associated activities . . . safer and better
than other upstream properties.'' Finally, UP states that the relief
``avoid[s] . . . excessively blocked crossings'' and ``alleviates undue
additional locomotive emissions from excessive idling times.''
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Communications are requested by June 6, 2023. Comments received
after that date will be considered if practicable. FRA reserves the
right to extend the existing relief subject to subsequent consideration
of any comments submitted to the docket.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of
regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-07324 Filed 4-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 97 (Thursday, May 19, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30411-30413]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10755]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1004; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00480-E;
Amendment 39-22030; AD 2022-09-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
(Type Certificate Previously Held by Rolls-Royce plc) Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) RB211 Trent 875-17, 877-17,
884-17, 884B-17, 892-17, 892B-17, and 895-17 model turbofan engines.
This AD was prompted by findings during engine overhaul of corrosion on
the low-pressure compressor (LPC) front case assembly. This AD requires
inspection of the LPC front case assembly and, depending on the result
of the inspection, accomplishment of the applicable corrective
action(s), as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective June 23, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 23,
2022.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference in this AD, contact
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221
8999 000; email: [email protected]. You may find this material on the
EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material
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>. It is
also available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1004. For RRD service information
identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate
Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom; phone:
+44 (0)1332 242424 fax: +44 (0)1332 249936; website: https://www.rolls-royce.com/contact-us.aspx.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1004; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
EASA AD, any comments received, and other information. The address for
Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0114, dated April 23, 2021
(EASA AD 2021-0114), to address an unsafe condition for certain RRD
RB211 Trent 875-17, 877-17, 884-17, 884B-17, 892-17, 892B-17, and 895-
17 model turbofan engines.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to RRD RB211 Trent 875-17,
877-17, 884-17, 884B-17, 892-17, 892B-17, and 895-17 model turbofan
engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 16,
2021 (86 FR 63319). The NPRM was prompted by findings during engine
overhaul of corrosion on the LPC front case assembly caused by
excessive movement between the Kevlar wrap and the fan case, which
resulted in the anti-corrosion paint fretting away. In the NPRM, the
FAA proposed to require the performance of all required actions within
the compliance times specified in, and in accordance with EASA AD 2021-
0114, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD and except as discussed under ``Differences
Between this Proposed AD and the EASA AD.'' The FAA is issuing this AD
to address the unsafe condition on these products. See EASA AD 2021-
0114 for additional background information.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from three commenters. The commenters
were American Airlines (American), The Boeing Company (Boeing), and
Rolls-Royce plc (RR). The following presents the comments received on
the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Revise Applicability

    American requested that the FAA revise paragraph (c),
Applicability, of this AD to replace ``as identified in EASA AD 2021-
0114'' with ``RB211 Trent 875-17, 877-17, 884-17, 884B-17, 892-17,
892B-17 and 895-17 engines with Low Pressure (LP) Compressor front
(fan) case assemblies having Part Number (P/N) FK33097, P/N FK26850, P/
N FK26853, P/N FK26915, P/N FK26692 or P/N FK28577.'' American stated
that certain engines identified in the EASA AD applicability section
have already performed rework on the LPC front case assembly to provide
additional corrosion protection using RR RB211 Trent 800 Series
Propulsion Systems Service Bulletin (SB) RB.211-72-G634

(RR SB RB.211-72-G634) or RR RB211 Trent 800 Series Propulsion Systems
SB RB.211-72-G856 (RR SB RB.211-72-G856) and the LPC front case
assembly subsequently received a new P/N. American explained that, in
addition to the new LPC front case assembly introduced by RR SB RB.211-
72-G581, the new reworked LPC front case assembly P/Ns are not
identified in the affected part list of the EASA AD.
    The FAA disagrees with revising paragraph (c), Applicability of
this AD. Paragraph (c) lists engines affected by this AD and refers to
EASA AD 2021-0114, which identifies the affected P/Ns of the LPC front
case assemblies. The Credit paragraph (4) in EASA AD 2021-0114
provides, ``Corrective action(s) on an engine, accomplished in
accordance with the instructions of Rolls-Royce SB RB.211-72-G634 or SB
RB.211-72-G856, are acceptable to comply with the requirements of
paragraph (2) of this [EASA] AD for that engine.'' The FAA notes that
this AD requires compliance with EASA AD 2021-0114 in its entirety,
including any credit for previous actions. The FAA did not change this
AD as a result of this comment.

Request To Revise Exceptions to EASA AD Paragraph

    RR requested that the FAA revise paragraph (h)(3) of this AD to
ensure consistency with the Credit paragraph in EASA AD 2021-0114 or to
provide an alternative means to accomplish the same intent. RR
explained that the service information cited in EASA AD 2021-0114
requires inspecting the affected part and contacting the manufacturer
for repair instructions if corrosion exceeds the criteria in RR Alert
Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) RB.211-72-G774. RR also
explained that the NPRM proposed to require the removal of an affected
LPC front case assembly if corrosion exceeds the criteria in RR Alert
NMSB RB.211-72-G774. RR noted that this difference is inconsistent with
the Credit paragraph of the EASA AD.
    In response to this comment the FAA has revised paragraph (h)(3) of
this AD to include a repair option for the LPC front case assembly in
lieu of removal. This revision allows operators to repair the affected
LPC front case assembly using a method approved by the Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Rolls-Royce's EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA). The FAA has also updated the
Estimated Costs section of this preamble to include the estimated costs
for repairing the LPC front case assembly.

Support for the AD

    Boeing expressed support for the AD as written.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes and an
update to the language in paragraph (h)(3), this AD is adopted as
proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic
burden on any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2021-0114. EASA AD 2021-0114 specifies
instructions for inspecting the LPC front case assembly and, depending
on the result of the inspection, corrective action. This material is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
ADDRESSES.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Rolls-Royce RB211 Trent 800 Series Propulsion
Systems Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AG774, Revision 4, dated October 13, 2020
(the NMSB). The NMSB specifies procedures for inspecting the LPC front
case assembly for corrosion and taking corrective action.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 98 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perform ultrasonic inspection.........  8 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $680         $66,640
                                         hour = $680.
Rework the LPC front case assembly....  200 work-hours x $85 per          18,724          35,724       3,500,952
                                         hour = $17,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacement or repair that would be required based on the results of
the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need this replacement or repair:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace the LPC front case assembly...........  140 work-hours x $85 per hour =         $932,000        $943,900
                                                 $11,900.
Repair the LPC front case assembly............  200 work-hours x $85 per hour =           18,724          35,724
                                                 $17,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2022-09-10 Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Type Certificate
previously held by Rolls-Royce plc): Amendment 39-22030; Docket No.
FAA-2021-1004; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00480-E.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective June 23, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD)
(Type Certificate previously held by Rolls-Royce plc) RB211 Trent
875-17, RB211 Trent 877-17, RB211 Trent 884-17, RB211 Trent 884B-17,
RB211 Trent 892-17, RB211 Trent 892B-17, and RB211 Trent 895-17
model turbofan engines, as identified in EASA AD 2021-0114, dated
April 23, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0114).

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by findings during engine overhaul of
corrosion on the low-pressure compressor (LPC) front case assembly
caused by excessive movement between the Kevlar wrap and the fan
case, which resulted in the anti-corrosion paint fretting away. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address corrosion on the LPC front case
assembly. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in
reduced integrity of the LPC front case assembly during a fan blade
release, resulting in damage to the airplane or reduced control of
the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Perform all
required actions within the compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with EASA AD 2021-0114.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0114

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0114 requires compliance from its
effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this
AD.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2021-0114 defines a qualified shop visit as
``any scheduled shop visit where the affected part is exposed and
substantial rebuild has not yet started, except shop visits for
serviceability only,'' for this AD replace that phrase with ``the
induction of an engine into the shop after the effective date of
this AD for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major
mating engine flanges, with the exception of the separation of
engine flanges solely for the purposes of transportation of the
engine without subsequent engine maintenance, which does not
constitute an engine shop visit.''
    (3) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2021-0114 specifies ``if,
during the inspection as required by paragraph (1) of this AD, any
corrosion is found exceeding the criteria as specified in the NMSB,
before release to service of the engine, contact Rolls-Royce for
approved repair instructions and accomplish those instructions
accordingly,'' for this AD replace that phrase with ``remove the
affected LPC front case assembly from service if corrosion is found
that exceeds the criteria specified in Appendix 2 of the NMSB.'' In
lieu of removal of the affected LPC front case assembly, operators
may repair the affected LPC front case assembly using a method
approved by the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; or
EASA; or Rolls-Royce's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.
    (4) This AD does not mandate compliance with the ``Remarks''
section of EASA AD 2021-0114.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0114
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) 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
ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed 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.

(k) Related Information

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

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0114,
dated April 23, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For more information about EASA AD 2021-0114, contact EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999
000; email: [email protected]. You may find this material on the
EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material 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>. This material may be found
in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1004.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email:
[email protected], or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on May 13, 2022.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-10755 Filed 5-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P