[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10226-10228]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03275]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68861; File No. SR-NYSE-2013-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Cease Operating New York Block Exchange and Contemporaneously Delete
the Text of Rule 1600, Which Governs NYBX Functionality

 February 7, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the

``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that,
on February 5, 2013, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, 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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to contemporaneously delete the text of Rule
1600, which governs NYBX functionality. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, 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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those 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 parts 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 intends to cease operating New York Block Exchange
(``NYBX''), effective February 28, 2013, and as such, proposes to
contemporaneously delete the text of Rule 1600, which governs NYBX's
functionality.\3\ NYBX is an electronic exchange facility that provides
for the continuous matching and execution of all non-displayed NYBX
orders with the aggregate of liquidity in the NYBX Facility, the NYSE
Display Book[supreg] and considers the protected quotations of all
automated trading centers for securities listed on the NYSE. The
Exchange is ceasing operations of NYBX Facility because after years of
operations the facility has not garnered enough volume to achieve
critical mass and does not have strong support customers [sic]. The
Exchange will provide advance notice to its members and member
organizations of the discontinuation of this functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In 2011, the Exchange filed a similar filing to cease
operations of NYSE Matchpoint and delete Rules related the exchange
facility. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63898 (February
11, 2011), 76 FR 9616 (February 18, 2011) (SR-NYSE-2011-03).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to make conforming changes to remove
references to Rule 1600 and NYBX from the following other Exchange
rules: Rule 13, Rule 15, Supplementary Materials .15 and .20 to Rule
79A, Rule 80C, Supplementary Material .10 to Rule 104, Supplementary
Material .10, .12, and .13 to Rule 104T, Supplementary Material .40 to
Rule 116, Rule 123B, Supplementary Material .10 to Rule 123C,
Supplementary Material .25 to Rule 123D, and Supplementary Material .11
to Rule 1000.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\4\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\
in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, 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. The proposed
rule change, in conjunction with a related communication to members and
member organizations, will provide advance notice to NYSE members and
member organizations that the Exchange will cease operation of NYBX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes are
being made to remove references for NYBX from the Exchange Rules to
correspond with the Exchange ceasing operations of NYBX facility. The
Exchange is ceasing operations of NYBX Facility because after years of
operations the facility has not garnered enough volume to achieve
critical mass and does not have strong support customers [sic]. The
Exchange is ceasing operations of NYBX because the facility was not
competitive, therefore ceasing operations should not have any burden on
competition.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
Because the 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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19-b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to give the Commission written
notice of the Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested a waiver of the 30-day operative delay
so that the Exchange can cease operations of the NYBX Facility by
February 28, 2013. The Exchange notes that NYBX has not achieved
significant volume during its operations and does not believe that
ceasing its operation will significantly affect the protection of
investors or the public interest. The Exchange further notes that
discontinuing operations of NYBX at month end will coincide with the
Exchange's billing cycle and avoid the expense and inconvenience of
extending operations into a partial month. The Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because such waiver would allow the
Exchange to cease operations of NYBX without incurring the expense of
extending operations into a partial month. Therefore, the Commission

designates the proposed rule change as operative as of February 28,
2013.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
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 such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-NYSE-2013-12 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.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2013-12. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2013-12 and should be
submitted on or before March 6, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-03275 Filed 2-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 156 (Monday, August 13, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 39879]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17282]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0725]

Special Local Regulations; Marine Events Within the Fifth Coast
Guard District

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations for the
Baltimore Air Show from October 4, 2018, through October 7, 2018, to
provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the event.
Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District
identifies the regulated area for the event. During the enforcement
period, the Coast Guard patrol commander or designated marine event
patrol may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the
regulated area.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.501 will be enforced for the
Baltimore Air Show regulated area listed in item b.23 in the table to
Sec.  100.501 from 11 a.m. through 5 p.m. on October 4, 2018, from
10:30 a.m. through 5 p.m. on October 5, 2018, from 11 a.m. through 5
p.m. on October 6, 2018, and from 11 a.m. through 5 p.m. on October 7,
2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Maryland-National Capital Region (WWM Division); telephone 410-
576-2674, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard was notified by the Historic
Ships in Baltimore, Inc., on February 6, 2018, through submission of a
marine event application that, due to a scheduling change, a change of
dates is necessary to the dates previously published in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) for the biennially scheduled Baltimore Air
Show, as listed in the table to 33 CFR 100.501. The date of the event
for this year is changed to October 4, 2018, through October 7, 2018.
The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations in 33 CFR
100.501 for the Baltimore Air Show regulated area from 11 a.m. through
5 p.m. on October 4, 2018, from 10:30 a.m. through 5 p.m. on October 5,
2018, from 11 a.m. through 5 p.m. on October 6, 2018, and from 11 a.m.
through 5 p.m. on October 7, 2018. Our regulation for marine events
within the Fifth Coast Guard District, Sec.  100.501, specifies the
location of the regulated area for the Baltimore Air Show, which
encompasses portions of the Patapsco River, at Baltimore, MD.
    This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on
navigable waterways during the event. As specified in Sec.  100.501(c),
during the enforcement period, the Coast Guard patrol commander or
designated marine event patrol may forbid and control the movement of
all vessels in the regulated area. Vessel operators may request
permission to enter and transit through a regulated area by contacting
the Coast Guard patrol commander on VHF-FM channel 16.
    In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register,
the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement
period via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information
broadcasts.

    Dated: August 7, 2018.
Joseph B. Loring,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2018-17282 Filed 8-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 5, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72203-72205]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29472]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1245; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-41-AD;
Amendment 39-17279; AD 2012-24-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Lycoming Engines and Continental
Motors, Inc. Reciprocating Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Lycoming Engines TSIO-540-AK1A, and Continental Motors, Inc. TSIO-360-
MB, TSIO-360-SB, and TSIO-360-RB reciprocating engines, with certain
Hartzell Engine Technologies (HET) turbochargers, model TA0411, part
number (P/N)<PHONE_NUMBER>;<PHONE_NUMBER>;<PHONE_NUMBER>;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
466642-9002; or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or with certain HET model TA0411
turbochargers overhauled or repaired since August 29, 2012. This AD
requires removing the affected turbochargers from service before
further flight. This AD was prompted by a report of a turbocharger
turbine wheel that failed a static strength test at its manufacturing
facility. We are issuing this AD to prevent turbocharger turbine wheel
failure, reduction or complete loss of engine power, loss of engine
oil, oil fire, and damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective December 20, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of December 20,
2012.
    We must receive comments on this AD by January 22, 2013.

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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Hartzell
Engine Technologies, LLC, 2900 Selma Highway, Montgomery, AL 36108,
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet: http://www.hartzellenginetech.com. You may view this service information at
the FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; 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 Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Richards, Aerospace
Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 2300 E. Devon
Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We received a report of an HET turbocharger turbine wheel that
failed a static strength test at its manufacturing facility. Subsequent
tests showed that nearly all turbine wheels, P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>, had
significant cracking under the surface of a critical weld joint between
the turbine wheel head and shaft that occurred during manufacturing.
HET has identified by serial number (S/N) the turbochargers shipped
from the factory with this unsafe condition. HET has also identified
the S/N range of affected turbine wheels. Some of the affected turbine
wheels became available for overhaul or field repair since August 29,
2012, and may have been installed. This condition, if not corrected,
could result in turbocharger turbine wheel failure, reduction or
complete loss of engine power, loss of engine oil, oil fire, and damage
to the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed HET Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 048, dated
November 16, 2012. The ASB lists the known serial numbers of affected
turbochargers.

FAA's Determination

    We are issuing 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.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires removing the affected turbochargers from service
before further flight.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because HET
cannot confirm the affected turbochargers can safely be used.
Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment
are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment
effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public
comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2012-1245 and
Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-41-AD at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this 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 AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 56 airplanes of U.S. registry with
affected turbochargers installed. We also estimate that it will take
about 4 hours to remove a turbocharger from service. The average labor
rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the total
cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $19,040.

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

    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 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.

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):

2012-24-09 Lycoming Engines and Continental Motors, Inc.
Reciprocating Engines: Amendment 39-17279; Docket No. FAA-2012-1245;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-41-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 20, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Lycoming Engines TSIO-540-AK1A, and
Continental Motors, Inc. TSIO-360-MB, TSIO-360-SB, and TSIO-360-RB
reciprocating engines with any of the following turbochargers
installed:
    (1) Hartzell Engine Technologies (HET) model TA0411
turbochargers, part numbers (P/Ns)<PHONE_NUMBER>;<PHONE_NUMBER>; 466642-
0006;<PHONE_NUMBER>;<PHONE_NUMBER>; and<PHONE_NUMBER>, with serial numbers
(S/Ns) listed in Table 2 of HET Alert Service Bulletin No. 048,
dated November 16, 2012, installed.
    (2) HET model TA0411 turbochargers having a turbine wheel, P/N
410188-0019, with any of the turbine wheel S/Ns H120716 through
H121988, installed.
    (3) HET model TA0411 turbochargers overhauled or repaired since
August 29, 2012, using a turbine wheel, P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>, with any of
the turbine wheel S/Ns H120716 through H121988, installed.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a turbocharger turbine wheel
that failed a static strength test at its manufacturing facility. We
are issuing this AD to prevent turbocharger turbine wheel failure,
reduction or complete loss of engine power, loss of engine oil, oil
fire, and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

    Before further flight, remove from service the turbochargers
identified in paragraph (c) of this AD, unless already done.

(f) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits are permitted provided that:
    (1) The flight is limited to three hours.
    (2) The turbocharger boost is set to ``Off'' in the cockpit (if
applicable).
    (3) The wastegate for the turbocharger is safety wired in the
locked open position.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19
to make your request.

(h) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Christopher
Richards, Aerospace Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office,
FAA, 2300 E. Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:

847-294-7834; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Hartzell Engine Technologies Alert Service Bulletin No. 048,
dated November 16, 2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Hartzell Engine Technologies, LLC, 2900 Selma Highway, Montgomery,
AL 36108, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet: http://www.hartzellenginetech.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information 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 Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 29, 2012.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Assistant Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-29472 Filed 12-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20076-20078]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8565]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0010]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 23 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting
the prescribed vision standard. The Agency has concluded that granting
these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective April 11, 2011. The exemptions
expire on April 11, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://

www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140 on the ground level of
the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

Background

    On February 22, 2011, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (76 FR 9856). That notice listed 23 applicants' case
histories. The 23 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 23 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard
red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision standard,
but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision limitation
and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 23 exemption
applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They are unable
to meet the vision standard in one eye for various reasons, including
amblyopia, complete loss of vision, optic nerve hypoplasia, aphakia,
macular edema, macular degeneration, cataract, retinal detachment and
prosthesis. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently
developed. 15 of the applicants were either born with their vision
impairments or have had them since childhood. The 8 individuals who
sustained their vision conditions as adults have had them for periods
ranging from 4 to 50 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing standards for their
State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a commercial vehicle,
with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State. While
possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 23 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 2 to 58
years. In the past 3 years, four of the drivers were involved in
crashes or convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the Februay 22, 2011
notice (76 FR 9856).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered not only the medical reports about the applicants' vision,
but also their driving records and experience with the vision
deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision standard, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex,

geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history--are used
every day by insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict
the probability of an individual experiencing future crashes (See
Weber, Donald C., ``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple
Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American
Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record
Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded
that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and
nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study
used 3 consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers
in the first 2 years with their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 23 applicants, two of the applicants were convicted for moving
violations and two of the applicants were involved in crashes. All the
applicants achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision
impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their
driving skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample
driving histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of
future performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can
be projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision standard in
49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 23 applicants listed in the notice of
February 22, 2011 (76 FR 9856).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 23 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification
file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of
the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The comment was
considered and discussed below.
    The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is in favor of
granting a Federal vision exemption to James H. Corby, Thomas E. Moore,
and John F. Murphy. They indicated that they have reviewed the driving
histories of these three applicants and have no objections to FMCSA
granting them vision exemptions.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 23 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts, Jody L. Baker, Gary W. Balcom, Jimmie L. Blue, Ronald Cook,
James H. Corby, Bobby D. Cox, Wesley M. Creamer, Gerald S. Dennis,
Cleveland E. Edwards, Thomas Grandfield, Bruce J. Greil, Johnnie L.
Hall, Jerry L. Hofer, Charles R. Hoeppner, Lester H. Killingsworth,
Joseph F. Lopez, III, Thomas E. Moore, John F. Murphy, Michael O.
Regentik, Larry D. Robinson, David Serrano, Bill J. Thierolf and Edward
Timpson from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to
the requirements cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: March 31, 2011.
Pamela M. Pelcovits,
Director, Office of Policy, Plans and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2011-8565 Filed 4-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52369-52372]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21121]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0763; FRL-9999-81]

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate; Exemption From the Requirement of a
Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of the fungicide and miticide sodium lauryl
sulfate in or on all food commodities when used in accordance with
label directions and good agricultural practices. Central Coast Garden
Products submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum
permissible level for residues of sodium lauryl sulfate under FFDCA.

DATES: This regulation is effective October 2, 2019. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before December 2, 2019
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0763, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNally, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Publishing Office's e-CFR site at
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0763 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
December 2, 2019. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0763, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    In the Federal Register of March 18, 2019 (84 FR 9737) (FRL-9989-
71), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance
petition (PP 8F8688) by Central Coast Garden Products, 1354 Dayton St.,
Unit N, Salinas, CA 93901. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180
be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) (CAS No. 151-21-
3) in or on all raw agricultural commodities. That document referenced
a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner, Central Coast
Garden Products, which is available in the docket via http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.

III. Final Rule

A. EPA's Safety Determination

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) and (D), which require EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption,
and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue . . . .'' Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D)
requires that EPA consider ``available information concerning the
cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and
other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on sodium
lauryl sulfate and considered its validity, completeness, and
reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human
risk. EPA also considered available information concerning the
variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of
consumers, including infants and children.
    Sodium lauryl sulfate (also called sodium dodecyl sulfate) is an
amphiphilic anionic surfactant that is widely used in cleaning
products,

cosmetics, personal care products, foods, pesticide products,
lubricants and paints.
    As a pesticide, the chemical is exempt from the requirements of
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as a minimum
risk active ingredient under the specifications in 40 CFR 152.25(f). As
an inert ingredient in pesticide products, SLS is approved for nonfood
and food uses without limitation as a surfactant for pre- and post-
harvest uses (40 CFR 180.910) and as a surfactant applied to animals
(40 CFR 180.930). For antimicrobial pesticide products, SLS is approved
for use in food-contact sanitizing solutions with an end-use
concentration limit of 350 ppm (40 CFR 180.940(a), (b), and (c)).
Currently, there is one federally-registered product where SLS is an
active ingredient, an antiviral tissue, which was registered in 2009.
    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved its use as a
direct and indirect food additive (with limitations) under 21 CFR
172.210, 172.822, 175.105, 175.300, 175.320, 176.170, 176.180, 176.210,
177.1200, 177.1210, 177.1630, 177.2600, 177.2800, 178.1010 and 179.45.
These uses include emulsifier, whipping aid, coating and wetting agent.
The chemical is also considered to be a Generally Recognized as Safe
(GRAS) substance (21 CFR 172.822 (with limitations); Flavor and Extract
Manufacturers Association (FEMA) # 4437).
    Overall, SLS is considered to be of low toxicity. Based on the
available information and the fact that humans have been exposed to SLS
for decades in food and nonfood products, the chemical is considered to
have a history of safe use. The target organ is the liver, but no
adverse effects were seen at or below 430 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/
kg/day). There is no evidence of increased susceptibility in the
developmental and reproductive toxicity studies. Moreover, no
neurotoxicity, genotoxicity, or carcinogenicity have been observed in
the available database, which includes the following studies: Acute
toxicity, repeat dose (gavage and dietary) toxicity, developmental
toxicity, reproductive toxicity, genotoxicity and carcinogenicity.
    With regard to potential dietary exposure to SLS, the Agency
expects that upon approval of this exemption, SLS may be used in any
number of pesticide products, as it is listed as an active ingredient
that can be used in minimum risk pesticide products without regulation
under FIFRA (except as directed in 40 CFR 152.25(f)). Moreover, as
noted above, SLS has been found safe for use as an inert ingredient in
pesticide products and has been approved by FDA for use as a food
additive. The Agency anticipates contributions to dietary exposures
(food and drinking water) to be negligible due to the physical and
chemical properties of SLS, which degrades rapidly in the environment
and is highly soluble in water. Furthermore, any minimal residues that
might be consumed are expected to be readily metabolized.
    Due to the low toxicity of SLS, long history of safe use, and
expected minimal dietary exposure, the Agency did not identify any
points of departure for a quantitative assessment of SLS.
    As part of its risk assessment for SLS, the Agency has further
considered the potential risks of residential exposures, aggregate
exposures, and cumulative risk. Based on SLS's low toxicity,
anticipated negligible dietary exposure and history of safe use in
consumer products, no risks of concern have been identified relative to
residential (non-occupational) pesticidal uses or any aggregate of
exposures to products containing SLS. Similarly, no risks of concern
were identified for cumulative exposures to SLS since no common
mechanism of toxicity was identified for either SLS or its metabolites.
    Therefore, based on the lack of toxicity and expected low
exposures, EPA has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and
children, from aggregate exposure to SLS. The data upon which EPA
relied to make its safety determination, as well as other relevant
information, including the Agency's dietary risk assessment, is
available in the docket for this action as described under ADDRESSES.
    Based on its safety determination, EPA is establishing an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the fungicide and
miticide sodium lauryl sulfate in or on all food commodities when used
on accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes due
to lack of concern for exposures, which supports the establishment of
an exemption for residues of sodium lauryl sulfate.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition
submitted to EPA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review
under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it a regulatory action under Executive
Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance
exemption in this action, do not require the issuance of a proposed
rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes. As a result, this
action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal
governments, on the relationship between the national government and
the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, EPA has determined that
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not
impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require EPA's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

V. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: September 17, 2019.
Richard Keigwin,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  180.1372 to subpart D to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1372  Sodium lauryl sulfate; exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance.

    Residues of the fungicide and miticide sodium lauryl sulfate (CAS
No. 151-21-3) in or on all food commodities are exempt from the
requirement of a tolerance, when used in accordance with label
directions and good agricultural practices.

[FR Doc. 2019-21121 Filed 10-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P