[Federal Register: December 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 236)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 69614-69616]
[DOCID:fr10de07-21]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28690; Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-21-AD;
Amendment 39-15289; AD 2007-25-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited
Model 206A and 206B Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited (BHTC) Model 206A and 206B
helicopters, serial numbers (S/N) 0004 through 3906, with two-piece
vertical stabilizer (fin) supports (fin supports) installed, that
requires inserting a revision into the applicable maintenance manual,
verifying the torque on the fin support attachment hardware, inspecting
the fin support bracket and fins for paint or gaps, and inspecting the
fin support bracket for cracking, and if a crack is found, replacing
the two-piece vertical fin support with a one-piece casting support.
This amendment is prompted by an accident in which the fin supports
failed. The actions specified by this AD are intended to detect
improper torque of the fin supports' attachment hardware, gaps between
the fin support bracket and the doubler, painted mating surfaces of the
fin supports, vertical fin, and vertical fin inserts (fin inserts), and
cracking in the fin supports, to prevent the vertical fin from rotating
into the tail rotor, separation of the tail rotor, and subsequent loss
of control of the helicopter.

DATES: Effective January 14, 2008.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of January 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may get the service information identified in this AD
from Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir,
Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
(450) 433-0272.
    Examining the Docket: You may examine the docket that contains this
AD, any comments, and other information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
 or at the Docket Operations office, West Building

Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy Group,
Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (817) 222-
5961.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend 14 CFR part 39 to
include an AD for the specified model helicopters was published in the
Federal Register on July 13, 2007 (72 FR 38527). That action proposed
to require inserting a revision into the Inspection and Component
Overhaul Schedule of the applicable maintenance manual, implementing a
recurring inspection at intervals not to exceed 100 hour time-in-
service (TIS) or at each annual inspection, whichever occurs first, of
the torque on the fin support attachment hardware, and inspecting the
fin support for damage. Inspecting for paint on the mating surfaces of
the fin support bracket and vertical fin, and inspecting the fin
attaching hardware for proper torque and the amount of gap between the
fin support bracket and the fin doubler, and inspecting the support
bracket for cracking using a 10x or higher power magnifying glass was
also proposed. Finally, if a crack is found, replacing the two-piece
vertical fin support with a one-piece casting support, P/N 206-033-426-
003, was proposed.
    Transport Canada, the airworthiness authority for Canada, notified
the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on BHTC Model 206A and 206B
helicopters, S/N 004 through 3906, with fin supports, P/N 206-031-417-
003 or

-007, or 206-031-418-001 or -005, installed. Transport Canada advises
that a one-time inspection of the vertical fin mating surfaces is
required to ensure an appropriate surface finish is present. In
addition, they advise that a recurring torque check of the vertical fin
attaching hardware is required to maintain the structural integrity of
the joint. They also advise that the initial inspection be performed at
the next scheduled 100 hour TIS or annual inspection, but within three
(3) months in accordance with BHTC Alert Service Bulletin No. 206-06-
107, dated April 26, 2006, or later revisions approved by Transport
Canada.
    BHTC has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. 206-06-107, dated April
26, 2006, and subsequently issued Revision A of this ASB, dated June
15, 2006, which specifies a series of inspections of the two-piece fin
supports, and also introduces a revision to Chapters 5 and 53 of the
BHT-206A/B Series Maintenance Manual. The revision to Chapter 5
introduces a recurring vertical fin attaching hardware torque check,
and inspecting the fin supports for damage, to be accomplished at the
next scheduled 100 hour TIS or annual inspection. The revision to
Chapter 53 updates the removal, installation, and inspection of the
vertical fin. Transport Canada classified this alert service bulletin
as mandatory and issued AD No. CF-2006-12, dated June 5, 2006, to
ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters in Canada.
    These helicopter models are manufactured in Canada and are type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
14 CFR 21.29 and the applicable bilateral agreement. Pursuant to the
applicable bilateral agreement, Transport Canada has kept the FAA
informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the
findings of Transport Canada, reviewed all available information, and
determined that AD action is necessary for products of these type
designs that are certificated for operation in the United States.
    Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the
proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. The FAA
has determined that air safety and the public interest require the
adoption of the rule as proposed.
    The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 1,466 helicopters of
U.S. registry, and the required actions will take approximately 4 work
hours per helicopter to accomplish at an average labor rate of $80 per
work hour. If needed, replacing a fin support will take approximately
30 work hours. Required parts will cost approximately $3,260 for each
fin support. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact
of the AD on U.S. operators to be $3,300,820 for the fleet during the
first year, assuming 7 inspections per helicopter are conducted, and
assuming that replacing the fin support is required on 3 helicopters.

Regulatory Findings

    We have 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 the regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD. See the AD docket to examine the economic evaluation.

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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (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. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive to
read as follows:

2007-25-07 Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited: Amendment 39-
15289. Docket No. FAA-2007-28690; Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-21-
AD.

    Applicability: Model 206A and 206B helicopters, serial numbers
0004 through 3906, with two-piece vertical stabilizer (fin) supports
(fin supports), part number (P/N) 206-031-417-003 or -007, or P/N
206-031-418-001 or -005, installed, certificated in any category.
    Compliance: Required at the next scheduled 100 hour time-in-
service (TIS) inspection or annual inspection, but no later than 90
days after the effective date of this AD, unless accomplished
previously, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS
or at each annual inspection, whichever occurs first.
    To detect improper torque of the fin supports' attachment
hardware, gaps between the fin support bracket and the doubler,
painted mating surfaces of the fin support bracket, vertical fin,
and vertical fin inserts (fin inserts), and cracks in the fin
supports, to prevent the vertical fin from rotating into the tail
rotor, separation of the tail rotor, and subsequent loss of control
of the helicopter, accomplish the following:
    (a) Insert Revision 4 of BHT-206A/B-SERIES-MM into the
appropriate section of the maintenance manual.
    (b) Determine the type and part number of the installed vertical
fin by referring to the listing in step 2., Table 1, of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bell Helicopter Textron Alert Service
Bulletin No. 206-06-107, Revision A, dated June 15, 2006 (ASB).
    (c) For Type 1 and Type 3 vertical fins, inspect the vertical
fin and fin support bracket for paint, and the vertical fin
attaching hardware for proper torque, in accordance with steps 5.
and 6. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the ASB.
    (d) For Type 2 vertical fins, inspect the vertical fin and fin
support bracket for paint, the vertical fin attaching hardware for
proper torque, and the amount of gap between the vertical fin
support bracket and the vertical fin doubler in accordance with
steps 5., 6., and 7. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the ASB.
    (e) If the inspections required by paragraphs (c) and (d) of
this AD indicate

that the torque and gap are within limits, and there is no paint
present, visually inspect the vertical fin support bracket in the
area of the vertical fin attaching hardware for a crack using a 10x
or higher power magnifying glass.
    (1) If no crack is found, re-torque the vertical fin attaching
hardware to between 75 and 95 in. lbs. (8.47 to 10.75 Nm).
    (2) If a crack is found, replace the two-piece vertical fin
support bracket with a one-piece vertical fin casting support, P/N
206-033-426-003.
    (f) Based on your finding in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this AD,
if either the torque or gap is out of limits, or paint is present:
    (1) Remove the vertical fin.
    (2) Remove all the primer and paint coatings in the areas
indicated in Figure I of the ASB.
    (3) Florescent penetrant inspect (FPI) the vertical fin support.
    (4) If a crack is found, replace the two-piece vertical fin
support with a one-piece vertical fin casting support, P/N 206-033-
426-003.
    (5) If no crack is found, apply two coats of Polyamide Epoxy
Primer on bare metal surfaces.
    (g) For Type 2 vertical fins only:
    (1) If incorrect washers (spacers) or no washers are installed,
visually inspect the 4 vertical fin potted inserts as depicted in
the vertical fin detail in Figure I of the ASB for any damage using
a 10x or higher power magnifying glass.
    (2) If any of the 4 vertical fin potted inserts is damaged with
no other damage to the surrounding areas, remove and replace the
damaged potted insert with an airworthy potted insert.
    (3) After assuring that all 4 installed vertical fin potted
inserts are undamaged, install the correct washers in accordance
with step 9.d. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the ASB.
    (h) This AD revises the helicopter maintenance manual by adding
an inspection of the torque on the vertical fin attaching hardware,
and inspections of the vertical fin and vertical fin support, to the
100-hour TIS and annual scheduled inspections.
    (i) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Contact the Manager, Regulations and Policy Group, FAA, ATTN: Sharon
Miles, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate,
Regulations and Policy Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for information about
previously approved alternative methods of compliance.
    (j) The determination of the type and part number of the
vertical fin, the inspections, and installing the correct washers,
if necessary, shall be done in accordance with the specified
portions of Bell Helicopter Textron Alert Service Bulletin No. 206-
06-107, Revision A, dated June 15, 2006. The Director of the Federal
Register approved this incorporation by reference in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Bell
Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel,
Quebec J7J1R4, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (450)
433-0272. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html
.

    (k) This amendment becomes effective on January 14, 2008.

    Note: The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada
(Canada) AD No. CF-2006-12, dated June 5, 2006.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 27, 2007.
Mark R. Schilling,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E7-23601 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 99 (Monday, May 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32326-32327]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12105]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0894; FRL-9946-71-OAR]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives--Requirements for
Manufacturers

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR) ``Registration of Fuels
and Fuel Additives--Requirements for Manufacturers'' (EPA ICR No.
0309.15, OMB Control No. 2060-0150) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is
soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed
information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension
of the ICR, which is currently approved through October 31, 2016. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 22, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0894, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public docket without change including
any personal information provided, unless the comment includes
profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James W. Caldwell, Compliance
Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Mail Code 6405A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 343-2800; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that EPA will be collecting are available in the public
docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the
burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond,
including through the use of appropriate automated electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal
Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: In accordance with the regulations at 40 CFR part 79,
subparts A, B, C, and D, Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives,
manufacturers (including importers) of motor-vehicle gasoline, motor-
vehicle diesel fuel, and additives to those fuels, are required to have
these products registered by EPA prior to their introduction into
commerce. Registration involves providing a chemical description of the
fuel or additive, and certain technical, marketing, and health-effects
information. The development of health-effects data, as required by 40
CFR part 79, subpart F, is covered by a separate information collection
(EPA ICR No. 1696.08, OMB Control No. 2060-0297). Manufacturers are
also required to submit periodic reports (annually for additives,
quarterly and annually for fuels) on production volume and related
information. The information is used to identify products whose
evaporative or combustion emissions may pose an unreasonable risk to
public health, thus meriting further investigation and potential
regulation. The information is also used to ensure that fuel additives
comply with EPA requirements for protecting catalytic converters and
other automotive emission controls. The data have been used to
construct a comprehensive data base on fuel and additive composition.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration of the Department of Labor
restricts the use of diesel additives in underground coal mines to
those registered by EPA. Most of the information has been claimed by
the manufacturers as CBI.
    Form Numbers: EPA Forms 3520-12, 3520-12A, 3520-12Q, 3520-13, 3520-
13A, and 3520-13B.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Manufacturers and importers of
motor-vehicle gasoline, motor-vehicle diesel fuel, and additives to
those fuels.
    Respondents Obligation to Respond: Mandatory per 40 CFR part 79.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1950.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion, quarterly, annually.
    Total Estimated Burden: 21,000 hours per year. Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total Estimated Cost: $1.9 million per year, includes $50,000
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is an increase of 400 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase is due to an increase in the number of
registered fuels and fuel additives for which periodic reports are
required.

    Dated: May 16, 2016.
Byron J. Bunker,
Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2016-12105 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


APPENDIX C

Wayne County Maintenance Plan for the

1-hour Ozone Standard

Technical Support Document

Mobile Source Highway Emissions Inventory

Executive Summary

                                                       Prepared for:

Mobile Sources Section, Bureau of Air Quality

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

PO Box 8468

Harrisburg, PA 17105-8468

                                                       Prepared by:

Michael Baker, Jr., Inc.

1304 Concourse Drive

Linthicum, MD  21090

410-689-3400

July 2007

 Wayne County: Mobile Source Emissions Inventory

Executive Summary

July 2007

Table of Contents

  TOC \o "1-4"  INTRODUCTION	  PAGEREF _Toc126628300 \h  1

Methodology	  PAGEREF _Toc126628301 \h  1

Inventory Submission Materials	  PAGEREF _Toc126628302 \h  2

DATA SOURCES AND ANALYSIS TOOLS	  PAGEREF _Toc126628303 \h  3

Analysis Tools	  PAGEREF _Toc126628304 \h  3

Traffic Data Source/Fleet Data Inputs	  PAGEREF _Toc126628305 \h  4

Traffic Growth Assumptions	  PAGEREF _Toc126628306 \h  4

I/M and Fuel Parameters	  PAGEREF _Toc126628307 \h  5

Weather Data	  PAGEREF _Toc126628308 \h  6

Other Inputs	  PAGEREF _Toc126628309 \h  6

RESOURCES	  PAGEREF _Toc126628310 \h  8

List of Tables

  TOC \h \z \c "Table"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc126628311"  Table 1:
Summary of Appendices	  PAGEREF _Toc126628311 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc126628312"  Table 2:   Summary of Inventory Analysis
Tools	  PAGEREF _Toc126628312 \h  3

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc126628313"  Table 3:   Wayne County VMT Growth
Assumptions	  PAGEREF _Toc126628313 \h  5

Summary of Appendices

Appendix C-1: 	Mobile Source Highway Emissions Inventory – An
Explanation of Methodology

Appendix C-2:	Wayne County Ozone (VOC, NOx) Emission Results

(By Year, Functional Class and Vehicle Type)

Appendix C-3: 	MOBILE6.2 Input Parameter Summary

Appendix C-4: 	MOBILE6.2 Sample Input Files

Appendix C-5: 	Traffic Growth Forecasting System

INTRODUCTION

This technical document supports the 1-hour ozone standard maintenance
plan for Wayne County, Pennsylvania.  Wayne County was an Incomplete
Data nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard.   The county has attained this standard, which was
withdrawn by USEPA and replaced in June 2004 with the more stringent
8-hour ozone standard.   In accordance with the Clean Air Act, USEPA's
November 29, 2005 Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards and other EPA guidance, former 1-hour
ozone nonattainment and maintenance areas that were not designated as
nonattainment of the 8-hour ozone standard and that are attaining that
standard, must submit a section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan.

The maintenance plan includes the development of an emissions inventory
of ozone precursors (VOC and NOx) for a base year and projection years.
The emissions inventory is used to demonstrate that projected emission
levels are sufficient to maintain the ozone standard.  U.S. EPA’s
Redesignation Guidance states, “A state may generally demonstrate
maintenance of the NAAQS by either showing that future emissions of a
pollutant or its precursors will not exceed the level of the attainment
inventory, or by modeling to show that the future mix of sources and
emission rates will not cause a violation of the NAAQS.”  This
document provides the base year and future year projections of mobile
(highway) vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and emissions (ozone precursors
VOC and NOx) that are needed to demonstrate maintenance for the region.

Methodology

Guidance documents from EPA were used to develop the base and future
year emissions inventories for Wayne County.  They include:

Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP Development ad
Transportation Conformity, US EPA Office of Air and Radiation, dated
January 18, 2002.

Technical Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for Emission Inventory
Preparation, US EPA Office of Air and Radiation, and Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, dated January 2002.

User’s Guide to MOBILE 6.1 and MOBILE6.2, Mobile Source Emission
Factor Model, EPA420-R-02-028, dated October 2002.

Mobile source emission factors were calculated using EPA’s MOBILE6.2
emission model.  The methodologies used to produce the emission results
conform to the recommendations provided in EPA’s Technical Guidance.
A mix of local data and national default (internal to MOBILE6.2) data
has been used for this submission.  Local data has been used for the
primary data items that have a significant impact on emissions.  These
include:

VMT and speeds

Vehicle type mixes

Vehicle age distributions

Hourly distributions

Temperatures/humidity

Inspection/Maintenance parameters

Fuel program characteristics.

For this submission, most local data inputs to the analysis process
reflect the latest planning assumptions based on 2005 data; however the
2002 base year utilizes 2002 data assumptions consistent with past
inventory efforts.  Traffic forecast growth rates were updated in 2005
and current assumptions on control strategies (e.g.
Inspection-Maintenance programs) and fuel characteristics are assumed.
The analysis methodology is consistent with past statewide inventory
efforts including the 2002 and 2005 National Emissions Inventory (NEI)
submissions.  A detailed methodology is provided in Appendix C-1.
Detailed information on the Commonwealth’s Traffic Growth Forecasting
System is provided in Appendix C-5.

The following sections address the key input data sources and analysis
tools used for the Wayne County inventory.  The final section summarizes
the inventory emission results for all applicable ozone pollutants.

Inventory Submission Materials

To complement this document, attachments have been provided with
additional detail regarding the analysis methodology, the MOBILE6.2
input parameters, and the output VMT and emission results for Wayne
County.  These include:

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  1 :   Summary of Appendices

Appendix	Title	Description

C-1	Mobile Source Highway Emissions Inventory –

An Explanation of Methodology	Provides summary of methodology used to
calculate the VMT and emissions.

C-2	Wayne County Ozone (VOC, NOx) Emission Results (By Year, Functional
Class and Vehicle Type)	Provides county by functional class emission
tables and county by vehicle type emission tables for a summer weekday
in 2002, 2004, 2009, 2018

Also includes annual 2002 results for VOC, NOx, CO

C-3	MOBILE6.2 Input Parameter Summary	Provides summary of input
parameters related to traffic data sources, fuel, weather, I/M, and
other MOBILE6.2 related parameters.

C-4	MOBILE6.2 Sample

Input File	Provides examples of the MOBILE6.2 input files.

C-5	Traffic Growth Forecasting System	Provides detailed explanation of
the Commonwealth’s revised methodology for VMT forecasting based on
socioeconomic and demographic projections.

DATA SOURCES AND ANALYSIS TOOLS

This section provides a summary of the key input data and analysis tools
used for producing the Wayne County emissions inventory.  The key
elements to the modeling protocol are described in the sections below.
A more detailed description of the analysis process and tools is
provided in the methodology report in Appendix C-1 and C-5.

Analysis Tools

The Wayne County inventory analysis utilizes several key
software/programs for producing the county emissions totals.  These
tools are outlined in Table 2.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  2 :   Summary of Inventory Analysis Tools

Tool	Purpose

MOBILE6.2	Produces emission factors for each pollutant in Grams/Mile for
VOC and NOx

PPSUITE	Processes the highway data, Calculates hourly congested speeds
for each state roadway segment, Prepares MOBILE6.2 input files,
Processes MOBILE6.2 output files

Custom SCC Output Reformatting Program	Prepares output database files by
EPA’s Source Classification Codes (SCC)

The Wayne County inventory reflects the highway mobile source emission
estimations using EPA’s MOBILE6.2 emission model.  The latest version
of MOBILE is a major revision based on new test data and accounts for
changes in vehicle technology and regulations.  In addition, the model
includes an improved understanding of in-use emission levels and the
factors that influence them resulting in significantly more detailed
input data.  As compared to previous MOBILE versions, MOBILE6.2 has a
significant impact on the emission factors, benefits of available
control strategies, effects of new regulations, and corrections to basic
emission rates.

PPSUITE represents an enhanced version of the Post Processor for Air
Quality (PPAQ) software system that has been used for previous inventory
and conformity submissions in Pennsylvania.  The software has undergone
significant revisions to ensure consistency with the MOBILE6.2 emissions
model.  PPSUITE plays a key role in the development of hourly roadway
speed estimates, which are supplied as input to the MOBILE6.2 model.
The software is also used to prepare the MOBILE6.2 input shell and to
process the MOBILE6.2 outputs.

Custom programs have also been prepared to translate the VMT and
emission results into a database file indexed by EPA’s Source
Classification Code (SCC).  This code represents combinations of vehicle
type groupings, functional classes, and time periods.

Traffic Data Source/Fleet Data Inputs

The 2002 and 2005 PENNDOT Roadway Management System (RMS) data serve as
the primary highway data sources for the county and functional class VMT
estimates.  The data source has been updated to provide a “snapshot”
of the regional roadway system and volumes for 2002 and 2005.  The data
includes the average annual daily traffic volumes for all state roadways
in Pennsylvania.  To account for additional local roadway VMT and to
ensure consistency with reported HPMS totals, the 2002 and 2005 VMT
totals are adjusted to match the 2002 and 2005 HPMS VMT totals reported
to FHWA.  Although 2005 is not an analysis year for this maintenance
plan, the data is used as a basis for all future forecasts.

Based on the requirements for ozone inventories, traffic volumes on each
RMS roadway segment must be adjusted to a summer weekday.  The daily and
monthly seasonal factors are developed from data contained in the
documents, 2002 Pennsylvania Traffic Data and 2005 Pennsylvania Traffic
Data, as prepared by PENNDOT’s Bureau of Planning and Research.  The
seasonal and daily factors provided in these documents are based on
statistical analyses of 2002 and 2005 traffic counts taken at permanent
and in-pavement ATR (automatic traffic recorder) locations throughout
the state.  Based on these seasonal traffic volumes, the PPSUITE
software calculates unique congested speeds for each roadway segment
during an ozone summer weekday scenario.

PPSUITE calculates congested speeds by hour of the day for each roadway
segment and provides the information as input to the MOBILE6.2 software.
 To disaggregate the daily RMS volumes to hourly volumes, auto and truck
hourly pattern data from PENNDOT’s traffic data reports are used to
determine the temporal variations in traffic volumes.

Vehicle mix patterns are calculated for each county/functional class
grouping utilizing a combination of 2002 and 2005 RMS truck percentages
and MOBILE6.2 default vehicle mix distributions.  The development of
vehicle type pattern data input to the MOBILE6.2 software is described
in more detail in Appendix C-1.  The distribution of vehicles to fuel
type (diesel, gas) is determined from the MOBILE6.2 default diesel sales
fractions.

Vehicle age distributions are input to MOBILE6.2 for each county based
on registered vehicles that reflect July 1 summer conditions.  These
distributions reflect the percentage of vehicles in the fleet up to 25
years old and are listed by the 16 composite MOBILE6 vehicle types.
Vehicle age distributions have been developed from the PENNDOT Bureau of
Motor Vehicles Registration Database.  2002 registration data is used
for the 2002 and 2004 analysis years, and 2005 registration data is used
for all future analysis years.  Due to insufficient data, only data for
light-duty vehicles are used as local inputs.  The heavy-duty vehicles
use the internal MOBILE6.2 defaults.

Traffic Growth Assumptions

Traffic growth forecasting plays a pivotal role in estimating future
year emissions for the region.  This inventory utilizes county-specific
growth rates from a PENNDOT study completed in 2005.  As part of that
study, a statewide traffic growth forecasting system was developed that
incorporates traffic data from PENNDOT’s Traffic Information System
and socioeconomic forecasts.  The study data and statistical models were
recently updated with 2006 socioeconomic forecasts and the latest
available HPMS VMT trends.

The study and methodology are  documented in the report “Statistical
Evaluation of Projected Traffic Growth, Traffic Growth Forecasting
System: Final Report, March 14, 2005” and contains the following
improvements over past approaches:

Strong statistical basis and consistent with state of the art.

Thorough documentation of approach vs. alternatives.

Increased robustness through the inclusion of both county-level
historical traffic trends from the RMS databases and county-based
demographic projections from an independent 3rd party (Woods and Poole
Economics, Inc.).

Incorporates socio and economic data (households, mean household income)
and a relative measure of transportation capacity (lane miles per
capita).

Expedient and inexpensive update process.

The results of the study have been shared between PENNDOT, PaDEP, and
other Interagency Consultation Group members, including the PA
Conformity Work Group (which includes EPA, FHWA, and representatives
from larger MPOs within the state).

The resulting forecasting system includes the development of VMT
forecasts and growth rates for four functional classifications in each
Pennsylvania county: urban interstate, urban non-interstate, rural
interstate, and rural non-interstate.  The forecasts use statistical
relationships based on historic HPMS VMT trends and future county
socioeconomic projections from Woods and Poole Economics, Inc.  The
model results from county-based model HH are used.  This is a
statistical model incorporating historical VMT trends, socio and
economic data (households, mean household income), and a relative
measure of transportation capacity (lane miles per capita), which
produce the upper boundary of VMT forecasts.     .  From an air quality
perspective, the use of the upper boundary is conservative, and provides
for factors outside PENNDOT or PaDEP control (e.g., potential
socio-economic growth above current forecasts, fleet age distributions,
vehicle type distribution) that influence motor vehicle emissions.
Table 3 summarizes the assumed projected growth of VMT for future
analysis years.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  3 :   Wayne County VMT Growth Assumptions

Analysis

Year	Total Growth

From 2002	Annualized Growth From Previous Analysis Year

2002	-----	-----

2004	1.8 %	0.9 %

2009	23.4 %	3.3 %

2018	32.2 %	2.0 %

I/M and Fuel Parameters

The Inspection Maintenance (I/M) program inputs to the MOBILE6.2 model
are based on past and current programs within the county.  For the 2002
analysis year, no I/M, ATP, or gas cap checks are assumed; however years
beyond 2003 include Pennsylvania’s statewide program.

The Pennsylvania inspection and maintenance (I/M) program was upgraded
and expanded throughout the state with a phase-in period starting in
December 2003 and fully implemented by June 2004.  The program test
requirements vary by region and include on-board diagnostics (OBD)
technology that uses the vehicle’s computer for model years 1996 and
newer to download potential engine problems that could effect emissions.
 The program, named PAOBDII, is implemented in the Philadelphia,
Pittsburgh, and South Central / Lehigh Valley Regions.  The Northern
Region receives gas cap and visual inspections and the other 42 counties
in the Commonwealth receive a visual inspection.  Vehicles subject to
the program include 1975 and newer model year gasoline cars and light
duty trucks up to 9,000 pounds GVW.  New model years are exempt for the
first year.  The county of registration determines which inspections are
required.

Wayne County is one of the 42 counties in the Commonwealth in which
vehicles receive a visual inspection.  The program expanded to these
counties in December 2003.  There were no prior emission inspection
programs in these counties.  The program parameters include:

Model Years	Program Parameters

1975 & newer 	ATP

The summer weekday RVP values are consistent with values used for past
inventory efforts.  These assumptions, as well as the I/M program and
fuel parameters, are summarized in Appendix C-3.

Weather Data

Updated weather information has been obtained from the National Climatic
Data Center to calculate the minimum and maximum temperatures and
absolute humidity data inputs to the MOBILE6.2 model.  These assumptions
are consistent with the 2002 and 2005 NEI inventory submissions and are
described below.

For each of the 10 days with highest 8-hour ozone concentrations between
2000 and 2002, minimum and maximum temperatures and barometric pressure
values were obtained for each of the weather station locations in
Pennsylvania.  In addition, relative humidity values are obtained for
3-hour intervals (8 intervals during a 24 day period) for each of the
exceedence days.  Absolute humidity values are then calculated from the
relative humidity and barometric pressure for each of the 8 daily
intervals using EPA’s M6HUMID program. The lowest of these 8 values is
determined to be the absolute humidity for that day.  Per EPA guidance,
the average of the minimum and maximum temperatures for all 10 days and
the lowest of the absolute humidity values are used as the inputs to
MOBILE6.2 for the summer scenario analysis runs.

Other weather data required by MOBILE6.2 are assumed as the program
defaults.  These include the cloud cover, peak sun, and sunrise/sunset
options.

Other Inputs

Federal Programs

Federal vehicle emissions control and fuel programs are incorporated
into the MOBILE6.2 software. The programs include:

The Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) including the National
Low Emission Vehicle Program (NLEV) and federal Tier II / Low Sulfur
Fuel Program;

Emissions standards for medium and heavy duty vehicles in 2002, 2004 and
2007;

Stage II and Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR).

Note: Pennsylvania considers emissions from refueling operations an area
source category. While MOBILE6.2 is employed to calculate emissions
factors for that source category, refueling emissions are not included
in highway vehicle emissions estimations.

State Programs

The MOBILE6.2 software also allows for modeling of permissible state
activities control emissions from highway vehicles.

In 1998, Pennsylvania promulgated the New Motor Vehicle Emissions
Control Program. This program created the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles
Program that required new light-duty highway motor vehicles offered for
sale within Pennsylvania to be certified by the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) under that Board’s Low Emitting Vehicle (LEV) program.
The Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program does not require the California
Zero Emitting Vehicle (ZEV) requirement.

As a compliance alternative to the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program,
automakers could elect to comply with the National Low Emission Vehicle
(NLEV) program. The NLEV program began phase-in starting in model
year1999 and was the compliance option for automakers. The Pennsylvania
rules allowed the NLEV compliance option for the duration of
Pennsylvania’s participation in the NLEV program. The Commonwealth’s
participation in NLEV was until model year 2006, thus requiring
automakers to comply with the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program (i.e.
California LEV requirements…currently the LEV II program) for model
years 2006 and beyond. Pennsylvania is in the process of amending the
Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program to extend the compliance start date
to model year 2008. The modeling results assume a 2008 start year for
the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program. Benefits from this program are
realized in 2008 and beyond.

The methodology employed to estimate the benefits of adopting CA LEV II
emissions standards is consistent with the approach provided in the
EPA’s June 2002 Guidance (Modeling Alternative NLEV Implementation and
Adoption of California Standards in MOBILE6, June 5, 2002). The approach
assumes:

Tier2 phase-in schedule consistent with MOBILE6.2 defaults

LEVII phase-in schedule as provided in EPA’s June 2002 Guidance

Assumes PZEV and AT-PZEV vehicles share the same evaporative emissions
as LEVII/Tier2 vehicles

Appendix C-4 contains the modified MOBILE6.2 files used to model the
above assumptions. They are consistent with the June 2002 EPA guidance.

The federal Tier 2 / Low Sulfur Fuel Program took effect in 2004 and in
practicality supplanted the NLEV program for new light-duty vehicles.

RESOURCES

Draft Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
Regional Haze Regulations, EPA, June, 2003

Consolidated Emissions Reporting, Federal Register, June 10, 2002

2002 Pennsylvania Traffic Data,  PENNDOT Bureau of Planning and
Research, 2002.

2005 Pennsylvania Traffic Data,  PENNDOT Bureau of Planning and
Research, 2005.

User’s Guide to MOBILE6.1 and MOBILE6.2, Mobile Source Emission Factor
Model, EPA420-R-02-028, dated October 2002.

Technical Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for Emission Inventory
Preparation, US EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, January
2002.

Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for Emission Inventory
Preparation, US EPA Office of Air and Radiation, January 18, 2002.

Modeling Alternative NLEV Implementation and Adoption of California
Standards in MOBILE6, EPA, June 5, 2002.

Statistical Evaluation of Projected Traffic Growth, Traffic Growth
Forecasting System: Final Report, Michael Baker Jr., Inc., March 14,
2005.

 PAGE   25

 PAGE   2

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 36 (Thursday, February 23, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11497-11498]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03776]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34835; File No. 812-15352]

The RBB Fund, Inc., et al.

February 17, 2023.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from sections
2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the
Act and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from
sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act.

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicants request an order (``Order'') that
permits: (a) The Funds (as defined in the Applicants' application) to
issue shares (``Shares'') redeemable in large aggregations only
(``creation units''); (b) secondary market transactions in Shares to
occur at negotiated market prices rather than at net asset value; (c)
certain Funds to pay redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances,
more than seven days after the tender of Shares for redemption; and (d)
certain affiliated persons of a Fund to deposit securities into, and
receive securities from, the Fund in connection with the purchase and
redemption of creation units. The relief in the Order would incorporate
by reference terms and conditions of the same relief of a previous
order granting the same relief sought by applicants, as that order may
be amended from time to time (``Reference Order'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Natixis ETF Trust II, et al., Investment Company Act Rel.
Nos. 33684 (November 14, 2019) (notice) and 33711 (December 10,
2019) (order).

APPLICANTS: The RBB Fund, Inc.; Summit Global Investments, LLC; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quasar Distributors, LLC.

FILING DATES: The application was filed on June 15, 2022, and amended
on September 26, 2022, November 1, 2022, and November 29, 2022.

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing
the Commission's Secretary at [email protected] and serving
applicants with a copy of the request by email, if an email address is
listed for the relevant applicant below, or personally or by mail, if a
physical address is listed for the relevant applicant below. Hearing
requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on March 14,
2023, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in
the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service.
Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the
nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by emailing the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: The Commission: [email protected]. Applicants:
Steven Plump, The RBB Fund, Inc., [email protected]; Jillian L.
Bosmann, Esq., Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP,
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephan N. Packs, Senior Counsel, or
Terri G. Jordan, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Chief Counsel's
Office, Division of Investment Management).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For Applicants' representations, legal
analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' third amended and
restated application, dated November 29, 2022, which may be obtained
via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the
top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search
field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be
searched at https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/

legacy/companysearch.html. You may also call the SEC's Public Reference
Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-03776 Filed 2-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 178 (Monday, September 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55004-55005]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21895]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2014-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1437]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists communities where the addition or
modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard
determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and
where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical
data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have
been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through
issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title
44, Part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR Part 65). The
LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the
contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently
effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used
for all new policies and renewals.

DATES: These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the
dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS
report in effect prior to this determination for the listed
communities.
    From the date of the second publication of notification of these
changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90)
days in which to request through the community that the Deputy
Associate Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The
flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day
period.

ADDRESSES: The affected communities are listed in the table below.
Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of
the community as listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/
fmxmain.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The specific flood hazard determinations are
not described for each community in this notice. However, the online
location and local community map repository address where the flood
hazard determination information is available for inspection is
provided.
    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must
be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed
in the table below.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR Part 65.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard
determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood
hazard determination information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Chief executive                       Online location
        State and county          Location and case      officer of        Community map     of Letter of Map        Effective date of        Community
                                         No.              community          repository          Revision              modification              No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas:

    Collin.....................  City of Allen (13-  The Honorable       City Hall, 305     http://            November 7, 2014............       480131
                                  06-4603P).          Stephen Terrell,    Century Parkway,   www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Mayor, City of      Allen, TX 75013.   lomc.
                                                      Allen, 305
                                                      Century Parkway,
                                                      1st Floor, Allen,
                                                      TX 75013.
    El Paso....................  City of El Paso,    The Honorable       Engineering        http://            November 28, 2014...........       480214
                                  (14-06-0412P).      Oscar Leeser,       Department, 222    www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Mayor, City of El   South Campbell     lomc.
                                                      Paso, 300 North     Street, El Paso,
                                                      Campbell Street,    TX 79901.
                                                      El Paso, TX 79901.
    Lampasas...................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       Lampasas County,   http://            September 15, 2014..........       480899
                                  areas of Lampasas   Wayne L.            501 East 4th       www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County, (13-06-     Boultinghouse,      Street,            lomc.
                                  4315P).             Lampasas County     Lampasas, TX
                                                      Judge, P.O. Box     76550.
                                                      231, Lampasas, TX
                                                      76550.
    Wagoner....................  City of Wagoner,    The Honorable       Wagoner County,    http://            November 28, 2014...........       400219
                                  (14-06-0309P).      James Jennings,     306 East           www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Mayor, City of      Cherokee Street,   lomc.
                                                      Wagoner, P.O. Box   Wagoner, OK
                                                      406, Wagoner, OK    74467.
                                                      74477.
    Wagoner....................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       Wagoner County,    http://            November 28, 2014...........       400215
                                  areas of Wagoner    James Hanning,      306 East           www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County, (14-06-     Chairman, Wagoner   Cherokee Street,   lomc.
                                  0309P).             County              Wagoner, OK
                                                      Commissioners,      74467.
                                                      P.O. Box 156,
                                                      Wagoner, OK 74477.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: August 26, 2014.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-21895 Filed 9-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 DATE: April 25, 2002 SUBJECT: Hexazinone. The Outcome of the HED Metabolism Assessment Review Committee for Water. PC code 107201; Rereg. Case 0266; DP Barcode: D282111; TXR No. 0050425.

FROM: Sherrie L. Kinard, Chemist Reregistration Branch II Health Effects Division (7509C)

THROUGH: Al Nielsen, Branch Senior Scientist Reregistration Branch II Health Effects Division (7509C)

TO: Christine Olinger, Chair Metabolism Assessment Review Committee (MARC) Health Effects Division (7509C)

MATERIAL REVIEWED The MARC met on January 29, 2002 and then again on March 12, 2002 to consider residues of hexazinone [3 cyclohexyl 6( dimethylamino) 1 methyl 1,3,5 triazine 2,4( 1H, 3H) dione] and metabolites in/ on plant and animal comodities and in water. Specifically, MARC determined which metabolites should be included in the tolerance expression and risk assessment.

MARC CONCLUSIONS The Committee concluded that hexazinone plus metabolites A, B, C, D, and E (calculated as hexazinone) are the residues of concern to be included in tolerance expression and risk assessment for plants and rotational crops. The residues of concern to be included in the tolerance expression for ruminants are hexazinone plus metabolites B, C, C 2, and F in milk, and hexazinone plus metabolites B and F in tissue. For purposes of risk assessment, the residues of concern in/ on ruminants are hexazinone plus metabolites B, C, C 1, C 2, and F. The Agency has previously determined that tolerances in poultry commodities and a poultry feeding study are not required for reregistration based on results of reviewed poultry metabolism data.

For water, the Committee concluded that for risk assessment purposes, hexazinone, G3170, and all metabolites with conjoined cyclohexyl and triazine rings should be included. Hexazinone HED MARC Meeting Summary Chart: Chemical: Hexazinone Date: 29 Jan 2002 Residues of Concern Matrix For Risk Assessment For Tolerance Expression Plants Parent, metabolites A, B, C, D, and E Parent, metabolites A, B, C, D, and E Rotational crop Parent, metabolites A, B, C, D, and E Parent, metabolites A, B, C, D, and E Poultry Not Required Not Required Ruminant Parent, metabolites B, C, C 1, C 2, and F For milk: Parent, B, C, C 2 and F For tissue: Parent, B, and F Water Not discussed N/ A Chemical: Hexazinone Date: 12 March 2002 Residues of Concern Matrix For Risk Assessment For Tolerance Expression Water Parent, G3170, and all metabolites with conjoined cyclohexyl and triazine rings. N/ A RATIONALE Plant: Hexazinone and metabolites A, B, C, D, and E are detected in plant metabolism studies. Toxicity data are not available for these metabolites, and MARC assumed they have potentially similar toxicity to the parent due to the similarities in structure. These metabolites are also measured by the enforcement method; in addition, metabolites A D and F were observed in the rat metabolism study. MARC concluded that for risk assessment and tolerance expression, hexazinone plus metabolites A, B, C, D, and E are the residues of concern.

Rotational crop: Hexazinone and metabolites F, G, H, G3170, G3170 NG, A 1, 1, and C 1 were also found in field rotational crop studies, in addition to the parent, A, B, C, D, and E; however, metabolites F, G, H, G3170, G3170 NG, A 1, 1, and C 1 were below the LOQ in the field studies. The MARC concluded that these low level metabolites are not likely to be significantly more toxic than the parent and can therefore be excluded.

Ruminant: Metabolites B, C 1, C 2, and F are the major metabolites (> 10% TRR) found in milk and tissue in the goat metabolism study; therefore, the MARC concluded that hexazinone plus these metabolites need to be included in the risk assessment. Since the enforcement method detects only parent, B, C, C 2, and F in milk, and parent, B, and F in tissues, MARC recommended that for milk tolerance expression, the residues of concern are hexazinone plus metabolites B, C, C 2, and F, and for livestock tissues tolerance expression, the residues of concern are hexazinone plus metabolites B, and F. Although the Committee previously (5/ 19/ 94) recommended inclusion of metabolites A, D and E in animal commodities, these moieties each represented <1 to 4% of the total residues in goat milk and tissues.

Poultry: No decision is needed at this time (40CFR180.6( a) (3)).

Water: Environmental fate data suggest that the parent and degradates are likely to be persistent and mobile in the environment. Leaching and runoff are expected to be primary dissipation routes. Metabolites A, B, D, 1 (JS472), and 2 (JT677) are major metabolites (> 10% TRR) found in soil/ aquatic studies. Metabolites A 1, C and G3170 are detected in ground water analysis. Due to lack of toxicity data for these metabolites, MARC assumes they have similar toxicity as the parent because of the structure similarities (except G3170). G3170 was detected at the highest level in the California prospective groundwater study (PGW) and there are no toxicity information available to indicated that it is of less toxicological concern than the parent. Therefore, MARC concludes that parent, G3170, and all degradates with conjoined cyclohexyl and triazine rings (specifically, A, A 1, B, C, D, 1 (JS472), and 2 (JT677)) are residues of concern for risk assessment in water.

ATTENDEES Members in Attendance (January 29, 2002): Abdallah Khasawinah, Yan Donovan, David Nixon, Rick Loranger, Leung Cheng, John Doherty, Sheila Piper, Bill Wassell, William Dykstra (alternate).

Members Not Present: Alberto Protzel, Christine Olinger, Norman Birchfield.

Non Members in Attendance: David Anderson, Sherrie Kinard, Diana Locke, Dirk Helder, Pauline Wagner, Larry Liu.

Members in Attendance (March 12, 2002): Abdallah Khasawinah, Christine Olinger, Norman Birchfield, Yan Donovan, David Nixon, Rick Loranger, Leung Cheng, John Doherty, Sheila Piper.

Members Not Present: Bill Wassell, Alberto Protzel, Leonard Keifer.

Non Members in Attendance: Dirk Helder, Sherrie Kinard, Larry Liu.

cc: SF, RF, List A File, S. Kinard (RRB2), D. Anderson (RRB2), Diana Locke (RRB2), L. Liu (EFED) RDI: C. Olinger: 04/ 25/ 02; A. Nielson: 04/ 25/ 02.

7509C: RRB2: S. Kinard: CM# 2: Rm 722B: 703 305 0563: 04/ 25/ 02.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39404-39406]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16265]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0425]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Wicomico Community Fireworks Rain Date, Great
Wicomico River, Mila, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
Great Wicomico River in the vicinity of Mila, VA in support of the
Wicomico Community Rain Date Fireworks event. This action is necessary
to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the
Wicomico Community Fireworks. This action is intended to restrict
vessel traffic movement on the Great Wicomico River to protect mariners
from the hazards associated with fireworks displays.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 7,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0425 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2012-0425 in the
``Search'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email LCDR Hector Cintron, Waterways Management
Division Chief, Sector Hampton Roads, Coast Guard; telephone 757-668-
5581, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because any delay encountered in this
regulation's effective date by publishing a NPRM would be impracticable
since immediate action is needed to provide for the safety of life and
property on navigable waters.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date would
be impracticable since immediate action is needed to ensure the safety
of the event participants, spectator craft, and other vessels
transiting the event area.

B. Basis and Purpose

    On July 7, 2012 the Wicomico Church will sponsor a fireworks
display, if the scheduled event is cancelled on July 4, 2012 on the
Great Wicomico River in the vicinity of Mila, VA. Due to the need to
protect mariners and spectators from the hazards associated with the
fireworks display, access to the Great Wicomico River within 420 feet
of the fireworks launching platform at position 37[deg]50'31'' N/
076[deg]19'42'' W (NAD 1983) will be temporarily restricted.

C. Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on specified waters
of the Great Wicomico River in the vicinity of Mila, Virginia. The
fireworks will be launched from land adjacent to the Great Wicomico
River and the safety zone is intended to protect mariners from any fall
out that may enter the water. This safety zone will encompass all
navigable waters within 420 feet of the fireworks launching platform
located at position 37[deg]50'31'' N/076[deg]19'42'' W (NAD 1983). This
safety zone will be established in the interest of public safety during
the Wicomico Community Fireworks event and will be enforced from 9 p.m.
until 10 p.m. on July 7, 2012. Access to the safety zone will be
restricted during the specified date and times. Except for individuals
responsible for launching the fireworks and vessels authorized by the
Captain of the Port or his Representative, no person or vessel may
enter or remain in the regulated area.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. Although this regulation restricts access
to the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant
because: (i) The safety zone will be in effect for a limited duration;
(ii) the zone is of limited size; (iii) mariners may transit the waters
in and around this safety zone at the discretion of the Captain of the
Port or designated representative; and (iv), the Coast Guard will make
notifications via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their
plans accordingly.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    The rule would affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in that portion of the Great Wicomico River from 9
p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 7, 2012.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) The
safety zone will only be in place for a limited duration. (ii) Before
the enforcement period of July 7, 2012, maritime advisories will be
issued allowing mariners to adjust their plans accordingly. (iii) This
regulation will only be enforced if inclement weather caused the
cancellation of the fireworks display currently scheduled for July 4,
2012.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves establishing a
temporary safety zone. An environmental analysis checklist and a
categorical exclusion determination will be available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 subpart C as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0425, to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0425  Safety Zone; Wicomico Community Fireworks Rain
Date, Great Wicomico River, Mila, VA.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following area is a safety zone: specified
waters of the Great Wicomico River located within a 420 foot radius of
the fireworks display at approximate position 37[deg]50'31'' N/
076[deg]19'42'' W (NAD 1983) in Mila, VA.
    (b) Definition. For purposes of enforcement of this section,
Captain of the Port Representative means any U.S. Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads, Virginia to act on his behalf.
    (c) Regulation.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23 of
this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his designated representatives.
    (2) The operator of any vessel in the immediate vicinity of this
safety zone shall:
    (i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any
commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a
U.S. Coast Guard Ensign; and
    (ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty
officer on board a vessel displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
    (3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads, Virginia can be
contacted at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) U.S. Coast Guard vessels enforcing the safety zone can be
contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio, channel 13 (156.65 MHz) and
channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
    (d) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced from 9
p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 7, 2012, if the event is cancelled on July
4, 2012.

    Dated: May 16, 2012.
Mark S. Ogle,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Hampton Roads.
[FR Doc. 2012-16265 Filed 7-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 28, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24573-24575]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10989]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85908; File No. SR-ICEEU-2019-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission or
Advance Notice Relating to Amendments to the ICE Clear Europe
Membership Policy

May 21, 2019.

    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 May 13, 2019, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'' or the
``Clearing House'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule changes described in Items I, II and
III below, which Items have been prepared by ICE Clear Europe. 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. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice

    ICE Clear Europe proposes to amend its Clearing Membership Policy
(the ``Policy'') to provide further clarification for the Clearing
Membership requirements and to update certain ICE Clear Europe internal
governance requirements applicable to all Clearing Membership
applications.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission or
Advance Notice

    In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe 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. ICE Clear Europe has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most
significant aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission or
Advance Notice

(a) Purpose
    ICE Clear Europe is amending its Clearing Membership Policy. The
proposed update allows for (i) the introduction of internal standards
to be used by the Clearing House to assess the CDS Clearing Members'
operational abilities to adhere to the existing CDS Clearing Membership
requirements in relation to the end-of-day pricing submission
obligations, (ii) the removal of the references to the F&O and CDS
Product Risk Committees' (collectively, the ``Product Risk
Committees'') role from the ICE Clear Europe internal governance steps
to approve or reject new Clearing Members, as the Executive Risk
Committee has obtained the authority from the ICE Clear Europe Board of
Directors to approve or reject applications, and (iii) the introduction
of an explicit requirement for the Clearing Risk Department to consider
the performance of the applicant Clearing Members in the Default
Management Test and to review such applicants' internal policies and
procedures to assess the efficacy of their default management process,
as part of the on boarding process.
(b) Statutory Basis
    ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed Policy changes would be
consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Securities
Exchange Act 1934 (the ``Act'') \3\ and the regulations thereunder
applicable to it, including the standards under Rule 17Ad-22 \4\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \5\ requires, among
other things, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements,
contracts, and transactions, the safeguarding of securities and funds
in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible, and the protection of investors and the public interest.
The proposed changes to the Policy would both (i) enhance the ability
of ICE Clear Europe to assess the capacity of applicant Clearing
Members to adhere to the rules of the Clearing House and (ii)
streamline the on boarding approval process of applicant Clearing
Members. The changes would thus facilitate continued clearing by
Clearing Members in compliance with the applicable rules of the
Clearing House and promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of transactions by these persons. Through enhancing risk
management processes relating to Clearing Member pricing capability and
default management, the amendments may also enhance the safeguarding of
securities and funds in the custody or control of the Clearing House or
for which it is responsible as well as the protection of investors and
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \6\ requires, among
other things, that the rules of a clearing agency are not designed to
permit unfair discrimination in the admission of participants or among
participants in the use of the clearing agency, or to regulate matters
not related to the purposes of the Section of the Act \7\ or the
administration of the clearing agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes would be aligned with such requirements as
they introduce further clarity on how ICE Clear Europe shall test the
ability of the CDS applicant Clearing Members to provide the required
information on the end of day prices to the Clearing House, in line
with the relevant rules of the Clearing House, and on the elements that
ICE Clear Europe shall consider to assess the effectiveness of the
applicant Clearing Members' default management process. The other set
of the proposed changes, which refer to certain changes to the internal
governance process for the approval or rejection of applicant Clearing
Members, would apply uniformly to all applicant Clearing Members,
ensuring that a consistent and non-discriminatory internal governance
process is followed for the approval or rejection of applicant Clearing
Members.
    The amendments would also satisfy the specific relevant
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22,\8\ as set forth in the following
discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) \9\ requires, among other things,
that the written policies and procedures of a clearing agency be
designed to provide for governance arrangements that are clear and
transparent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Clear Europe believes the proposed amendment to remove the
references to the Product Risk Committees' role in the new Clearing
Members approval process, as the ICE Clear Europe Executive Risk
Committee has obtained the authority from the ICE Clear Europe Board of
Directors to approve or reject applications, would allow for a more
accurate description in the Policy of the actual internal governance
process followed by ICE Clear Europe.
    Finally, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(18) \10\ requires, among other things,
that the written policies and procedures of a clearing agency be
designed to establish objective, risk-based, and publicly disclosed
criteria for participation, which permit fair and open access by direct
and, where relevant, indirect participants and other financial market
utilities, and to require participants to have sufficient financial
resources and robust operational capacity to meet obligations arising
from participation in the clearing agency, and monitor compliance with
such participation requirements on an ongoing basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Clear Europe believes the proposed amendments would be
consistent with such requirements. Indeed, the additional
clarifications on the end-of-day pricing requirements for CDS Clearing
Members and on the elements that ICE Clear Europe shall consider to
assess the effectiveness of the applicant Clearing Members' default
management process allow for the introduction of clearer and more
objective parameters for the ICE Clear Europe Clearing Risk Department
to make a determination on the Clearing Member's ability to adhere to
the ICE Clear Europe Clearing Membership requirements.
    In relation to the requirement on the public disclosure of the
criteria for participation to the Clearing House, ICE Clear Europe
achieves compliance with such requirement by making the ICE Clear
Europe Membership Procedures available on its website.\11\ The proposed
amendments do not trigger any change to the ICE Clear Europe Membership
Procedures, as the amendments do not refer to any of the four areas
covered by the ICE Clear Europe Membership Procedures: Application
Process, Resignation Process, Capital

Requirements and Matters Requiring Notification by Clearing Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ https://www.theice.com/clear-europe/regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result, in ICE Clear Europe's view, the amendments would be
consistent with the obligations of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(18) \12\ that
require clearing agencies to have objective, risk-based, and publicly
disclosed criteria for participation of Clearing Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed rule changes would
have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The proposed amendments related to the changes for CDS Membership
shall be applied uniformly to all CDS Clearing Members. Additionally,
the proposed changes on the elements to be considered by the Clearing
House to assess the effectiveness of the applicant Clearing Members'
default management process and the proposed changes to the internal
governance approval process of new Clearing Members shall apply
uniformly to all new Clearing Members. Therefore, ICE Clear Europe does
not believe the amendments would adversely affect competition among
Clearing Members, materially affect the cost of clearing, adversely
affect access to clearing in Contracts for Clearing Members or their
customers, or otherwise adversely affect competition in clearing
services. Accordingly, ICE Clear Europe does not believe that the
amendments would impose any impact or burden on competition that is not
ate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed amendments have not been
solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify
the Commission of any comments received with respect to the proposed
amendments.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based
Swap Submission and Advance Notice and Timing for Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, security-based swap submission or advance notice 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-ICEEU-2019-010 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2019-010. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change, security-based
swap submission or advance notice that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change,
security-based swap submission or advance notice between the Commission
and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public
in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available
for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days
between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings
will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of ICE Clear Europe and on ICE Clear Europe's website at https://www.theice.com/clear-europe/regulation. All comments received will be
posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that
we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
ICEEU-2019-010 and should be submitted on or before June 18, 2019.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-10989 Filed 5-24-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 171 (Friday, September 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 54818]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22581]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copy Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form N-6F, SEC File No. 270-185, OMB Control No. 3235-0238.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Form N-6F (17 CFR
274.15), Notice of Intent to Elect to be Subject to Sections 55 through
65 of the Investment Company Act of 1940.'' The purpose of Form N-6F is
to notify the Commission of a company's intent to file a notification
of election to become subject to Sections 55 through 65 of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) (``1940
Act''). Certain companies may have to make a filing with the Commission
before they are ready to elect to be regulated as a business
development company.\1\ A company that is excluded from the definition
of ``investment company'' by Section 3(c)(1) because it has fewer than
one hundred shareholders and is not making a public offering of its
securities may lose such an exclusion solely because it proposes to
make a public offering of securities as a business development company.
Such company, under certain conditions, would not lose its exclusion if
it notifies the Commission on Form N-6F of its intent to make an
election to be regulated as a business development company. The company
only has to file a Form N-6F once.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A company might not be prepared to elect to be subject to
Sections 55 through 65 of the 1940 Act because its capital structure
or management compensation plan is not yet in compliance with the
requirements of those sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission estimates that on average approximately thirteen
companies file these notifications each year. Each of those companies
need only make a single filing of Form N-6F. The Commission further
estimates that this information collection imposes burden of 0.5 hours,
resulting in a total annual PRA burden of 6.5 hours. Based on the
estimated wage rate, the total cost to the industry of the hour burden
for complying with Form N-6F would be approximately $2,080.
    The collection of information under Form N-6F is mandatory. The
information provided under the form is not kept confidential. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an
e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     Dated: August 29, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-22581 Filed 9-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P