[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11218-11221]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03353]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9959-09-Region 10]

Washington State Department of Ecology Prohibition of Discharges
of Vessel Sewage; Final Affirmative Determination

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of determination.

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

SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, has determined that adequate facilities for the safe
and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are
reasonably available for all marine waters of Washington State inward
from the line between New Dungeness Lighthouse and the Discovery Island
Lighthouse to the Canadian border, and fresh waters of Lake Washington,
Lake Union, and connecting waters between and to Puget Sound. This
notice constitutes EPA's final determination on the petition submitted
by the Washington State Department of Ecology on July 21, 2016,
pursuant to Section 312(f)(3) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1322,
for a determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary
removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably
available for the waters of Puget Sound. This determination does not
itself constitute the designation of a no-discharge zone, rather, the
State of Washington may now in its discretion

finalize its proposed designation in accordance with state law and take
the steps it deems appropriate to implement and enforce the discharge
prohibition.

EPA Response to Public Comments on the November 7, 2016 Preliminary
Affirmative Determination

    On November 7, 2016, EPA published notice of its preliminary
affirmative determination that adequate facilities for the safe and
sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are
reasonably available for the waters subject to Washington's proposed
no-discharge zone [FR Number 2016-26877; 81 FR 78141, November 7, 2016]
with a 30-day public comment period. At the request of stakeholders,
EPA extended the 30-day public comment period from December 7, 2016 to
December 23, 2016.
    EPA received a total of 40,462 comments via letter, email, online
using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, and in person. All forms of input
were considered equally. Of the comments received, 328 were individual
letters and 40,134 were form letters, mass mailers and/or petitions, a
few with minor additions. Of the individual letters, approximately two-
thirds supported and one-third opposed EPA's preliminary affirmative
determination. Two mass mailers totaling 72 signatures opposed EPA's
tentative affirmative determination and 40,062 supported it. Comments
were submitted by individuals, environmental organizations, vessel
associations, boating and yacht clubs, industry representatives, port
authorities, county, federal, local and tribal governmental entities,
and other interested groups.
    In addition to comments expressing support or opposition to a Puget
Sound no-discharge zone, many commenters specifically addressed the
adequacy and availability of pumpout facilities, while others focused
on broader issues beyond the scope of EPA's review and determination.
All of the relevant comments received have been considered. EPA has
prepared a response to comments that supports this determination. The
response to comments document can be found at this Web site: https://www.epa.gov/puget-sound/epas-final-determination-no-discharge-zone-puget-sound.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Catherine Gockel, U.S. EPA Region 10,
Office of Water and Watersheds, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, Washington
98101; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Ecology has petitioned the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10,
pursuant to section 312(f)(3) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1322,
for a determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary
removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably
available for the waters of Puget Sound. As described in the State's
petition, submitted to EPA on July 21, 2016, the Washington State
Department of Ecology has determined that the protection and
enhancement of the quality of the waters of Puget Sound requires
greater environmental protection, and petitioned the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, for a determination that
adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of
sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for those waters, so
that the State may completely prohibit the discharge from all vessels
of any sewage, whether treated or not, into such waters.
    According to the Ecology's petition, the western boundary of the
NDZ would be the exit of the Strait of Juan de Fuca near the entrance
of Admiralty Inlet. This boundary is known and visible to vessel
operators as it is the line between New Dungeness Lighthouse and
Discovery Island Lighthouse. The northern boundary would be the border
with Canada and heading south including all marine waters down to the
south end of the south Sound and Hood Canal. The fresh waters of Lake
Washington, Union Bay, Montlake Cut, Portage Bay, Lake Union, Fremont
Cut, the Lake Washington Ship Canal, and Salmon Bay (the connecting
waters from Lake Washington to Puget Sound) would be included. For more
information regarding the State's planned no-discharge zone, please go
to: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/nonpoint/CleanBoating/nodischargezone.html.

Washington State Department of Ecology's Certificate of Need

    The Washington State Department of Ecology developed its petition
in order to establish a vessel sewage no-discharge zone for all marine
waters of Washington State inward from the line between New Dungeness
Lighthouse and the Discovery Island Lighthouse to the Canadian border,
and fresh waters of Lake Washington, Lake Union, and connecting waters
between and to Puget Sound, and has submitted a certificate that the
protection and enhancement of the waters described in the petition
require greater environmental protection than the applicable Federal
standard.

Adequacy and Availability of Sewage Pumpout Facilities

    EPA's determination is based on the information provided in
Ecology's July 21, 2016 petition as well as supplemental information
that Ecology submitted to EPA on October 14, 2016, regarding commercial
vessel pumpout availability in Puget Sound. In reaching this final
determination, EPA has conducted additional outreach to verify and
confirm the information provided in Ecology's submittals and follow up
on comments received. The information obtained further supports EPA's
determination that adequate pumpout out facilities for the safe and
sanitary removal of sewage are reasonably available for both commercial
and recreational vessels. Additional detail is provided below and in
EPA's response to comments document.
    Guidelines issued pursuant to the Clean Vessel Act for recreational
vessels recommend one pumpout station for every 300-600 boats [Clean
Vessel Act: Pumpout Station and Dump Station Technical Guidelines,
Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 47, March 10, 1994]. In its petition,
the State described the recreational vessel population in Puget Sound
as well as the stationary pumpout facilities and mobile pumpout
services that are available for use.
    The State used two methods to develop a reasonable estimate of the
recreational vessel population in Puget Sound. The first method was
based on boater registration records obtained from the Washington State
Department of Licensing (DOL). Using data from the DOL, the maximum
estimated number of recreational vessels in each of the Washington
State counties bordering Puget Sound that might require access to
pumpout facilities or services under NDZ regulations (i.e., boats
larger than 21 feet) is 43,677. Vessels under 21 feet were not included
in the estimate because they typically do not have an installed toilet.
Because boater registration data may include a number of small, locally
registered, commercial vessels such as fishing boats or tug boats, the
total may be an overestimate.
    The second method was based on the number of moorages and slips
available to boaters, using Google Earth imagery captured during the
summers of 2011 and 2012 to count vacant and occupied marina slips and
moored vessels. Using this method, the State estimates a recreational
vessel population of 23,555. The State believes that this also may be
an overestimate, albeit less of an overestimate than the number

calculated using the DOL boater registration data.
    The State's petition also provided information about 173 pumpout
units at 102 locations, and 21 mobile pumpout boats available for
recreational vessels in Puget Sound. EPA's review of Ecology's petition
and the comments received has confirmed that the total number, location
and availability of these pumpout facilities and services track the
overall distribution of the recreational vessel population. The ongoing
costs for recreational vessels to pumpout is minimal, with most
pumpouts being free or $5 per pumpout. The majority of pumped sewage is
sent to wastewater treatment plants; however, some is sent to onsite
septic tanks that meet federal requirements.
    The most conservative estimate of the ratio of pumpout facilities
to recreational vessels is 1:171 boats for each pumpout facility, not
including the mobile services. Based on DOL vessel registration data,
there is a maximum of 43,677 recreation vessels in Puget Sound that
could require access to pumpout facilities. As noted above, this is the
State's most conservative (high) estimate. Using a 40 percent peak
occupancy rate recommended by the Clean Vessel Act Technical Guidelines
cited above, EPA has calculated that 17,471 of the 43,677 boats
recreational vessels would require access to a pumpout facility during
peak boating season. The State identified 102 recreational pumpout
locations, which results in a ratio of 171 recreational vessels for
each pumpout location, not including the mobile services. Applying the
same 40% occupancy rate to the lower recreational vessel estimate of
23,555 obtained from the moorage count results in a ratio of 92
recreational vessels for each pumpout location, not including the
mobile services.
    Accordingly, even using the more conservative vessel count, the
resulting ratio well exceeds the recommended minimum ratio of 1:600. In
addition, EPA has confirmed that numerous mobile pumpout trucks and
vessels are available to provide service for recreational vessels
throughout Puget Sound. As set forth in Table 8 of Ecology's supplement
information, there are 194 mobile pumpout companies; of these, at least
52 vacuum trucks and two mobile pumpout vessels are available for
pumping out larger recreational vessels. Mobile pumpout services are
available seven days a week, with extended hours during the busy summer
months. These mobile services provide additional pumpout options to
address concerns raised regarding location or access issues. Additional
information is provided in EPA's response to comments document.
    Based on this information, EPA determines that adequate pumpout
facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage
for recreational vessels are reasonably available for the waters of
Puget Sound.
    Puget Sound is also used by many different sizes and types of
commercial vessels. The State used a study conducted by the Puget Sound
Maritime Air Forum (Starcrest, 2007) to develop a reasonable estimate
of commercial vessel use of Puget Sound. The study concluded that there
were 2,937 entries of large oceangoing vessels into Puget Sound in
2005, and an estimated 678 other commercial vessels that operate mostly
within Puget Sound (e.g., escort tugs) or have Puget Sound as their
home port (e.g., the fleet of fishing vessels that travels to Alaska
each year). According to the State, current commercial vessel
statistics are estimated to be similar to the data from 2005. Based on
information provided by a commenter, updated information in 2013 may
raise this number to 709. As discussed below, this difference of 31
vessels does not make a measurable difference in terms of EPA's
conclusions regarding the ratio of commercial vessels to available
pumpout facilities.
    The large, oceangoing transient commercial vessels that are only in
Puget Sound for a short period of time (e.g., large cruise ships,
freighters and tankers) have large enough holding tanks to hold their
waste during the time they are in Puget Sound, with some exceptions.
Although included in the initial overall vessel estimate, these vessels
do not have a need to pumpout and were not included when assessing the
adequacy of pumpout facilities. Washington State Ferries (WSDOT
ferries) and U.S. military vessels have holding tanks and use large-
scale, dedicated pumpout facilities where they are moored. Smaller
commercial vessels, such as ferries, tugboats, excursion vessels, and
fishing vessels with installed toilets can use the stationary pumpouts,
mobile pumpout service vessels, some of the recreational pumpouts, or
shore-based pumper trucks, described in more detail below.
    The State identified eight stationary pumpouts dedicated to WSDOT
ferries, three dedicated to U.S. Navy vessels, one dedicated to the
Victoria Clipper vessels and one for the McNeil Island Department of
Corrections vessels. The Port of Bellingham cruise terminal area also
has three stationary pumpouts, one of which is used for Alaska Marine
Highway vessels and two other pumpouts that can serve other commercial
vessels. Although not included in this analysis, EPA notes that two
more commercial pumpouts are being installed, one in Seattle for all
commercial vessels and another at the Port of Bellingham mostly for
fishing vessels. Estimated dates for completion are March and September
2017, respectively.
    The State's supplemental information identified five companies that
specialize in commercial marine work and that are capable of removing
sewage from commercial vessel holding tanks. These five companies have
a combined total of approximately 52 trucks (capacity ranging from
2,200-7,000 gallons each) and two mobile barges (capacity of 3,000
gallons each). These companies serve all of Puget Sound and can provide
pumpout services at a variety of docks and ports for all types of
commercial vessels, including tugs, fishing vessels, USCG vessels,
smaller cruise ships, tankers, and other vessels. EPA contacted four of
the commercial marine work companies identified in Ecology's
supplemental information document and confirmed that the information
provided was accurate.
    The State's petition and supplemental information also identified
21-23 mobile pumpout vessels. These mobile pumpouts primarily service
recreational boats, but several have serviced commercial vessels such
as charter boats, fishing vessels, U.S. Coast Guard vessels, and
passenger vessels. The mobile pumpout boats have a capacity between 40
and 450 gallons and cover vast areas geographically as they are able to
move to vessels, although some stay within their own marina or harbor
area. In addition to the pumpouts described above, there are
approximately 140 licensed or certified pumper truck companies in Puget
Sound that primarily pump out septic tanks, but that can also pump out
vessel sewage. The number of trucks in each company ranges from 1-13,
and approximately half of these companies contacted by the State are
currently, or are willing to, pump out commercial vessel sewage.
    The State indicates that the number of commercial vessels that are
likely to be in regular need of pumpout facilities within a no-
discharge zone would include the non-ocean going vessels that include
tugboats, commercial fishing vessels, small passenger vessels, NOAA
research and survey vessels, WSDOT Ferries, military and other
government vessels, excursion and other commercial vessels. Given that
the WSDOT Ferries, military vessels, and Victoria Clipper vessels all
have dedicated stationary pumpouts, they have been removed

from the count and EPA has not included their 14 dedicated pumpout
facilities in the analysis below. Using the starting number of 678 from
the 2005 Starcrest survey, this leaves an approximate 600 vessels that
would be in need of other pumpout facilities. Using the starting number
of 709 from the 2013 Starcrest survey would leave 631 vessels in need
of pumpout facilities.
    With the two stationary commercial pumpouts, at least 52 Sound-wide
commercial pumper trucks, and the two Sound-wide mobile commercial
pumpout barges described above, this amounts to at least 56 pumpouts
available for commercial vessels which results in an approximate ratio
of 11:1, using either the 600 or 631 vessel estimates cited above. In
addition to this ratio, EPA has considered the fact that these mobile
pumpouts provide service throughout Puget Sound, provide sufficient
capacity for commercial vessels, and generally do not experience dock
access issues. Moreover, these pumpout services can be scheduled by
appointment to accommodate vessel needs and itineraries, and are
sufficiently diversified such that they do not experience seasonal
fluctuations. Given the widespread availability and flexibility of
these services and the overall ratio of 11:1, EPA determines that
adequate pumpout facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and
treatment of sewage for commercial vessels are reasonably available for
the waters of Puget Sound.
    EPA further notes that the estimated ratio may be conservative,
given that a number of the mobile pumpout boats and pumper trucks
described above may also provide commercial pumpout services.

Table of Facilities

    A list of pumpout facilities, phone numbers, locations, hours of
operation, water depth, and fees is provided at this link to the
Washington Department of Ecology Web site: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/nonpoint/CleanBoating/VesselPumpoutTables.pdf.
    Based on the information above, the EPA hereby makes a final
affirmative determination that adequate facilities for the safe and
sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are
reasonably available for the waters of Puget Sound.

    Dated: February 13, 2017.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2017-03353 Filed 2-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11734-11737]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04831]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 222

[Docket No. FRA-2016-0010, Notice No. 1]

Use of Locomotive Horns at Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossings;
Notice of Safety Inquiry

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of safety inquiry.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is conducting a retrospective review of its locomotive
train horn regulations in 49 CFR part 222. As part of its review, FRA
is soliciting public comment on whether FRA should modify, streamline,
or expand any requirements of FRA's locomotive train horn regulations
to reduce paperwork and other economic burdens on the rail industry and
States

and local authorities while still maintaining the highest standards of
safety. The list of topics at the end of this Notice highlights
specific areas on which FRA would particularly encourage the rail
industry, as well as State and local authorities to provide comment.

DATES: Written comments must be received by July 5, 2016. Comments
received after that date will be considered to the extent possible
without incurring additional expense or delay.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Ries, Staff Director, Highway-Rail
Crossing and Trespasser Programs Division, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Railroad
Safety, Mail Stop 25, West Building 3rd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Kathryn Gresham,
Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad
Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, Mail Stop 10, West Building
3rd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:
202-493-6052); or Brian Roberts, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Chief
Counsel, Mail Stop 10, West Building 3rd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose of Retrospective Review

    Under its general statutory rulemaking authority, FRA promulgates
and enforces rules as part of a comprehensive regulatory program to
address all areas of railroad safety. See 49 U.S.C. 20103 and 49 CFR
1.89. To provide for safety at public highway-rail grade crossings
(public grade crossings), FRA has issued specific regulations in 49 CFR
part 222 that generally require locomotive horn use at such crossings
except within authorized quiet zones established under the regulations.
Congress mandated these regulations in Public Law 103-440, codified as
Section 20153 to title 49 of the United States Code. This statute
required the Secretary of Transportation (whose authority in this area
had been delegated to the Federal Railroad Administrator) to issue
regulations on the use of locomotive horns at public grade crossings,
but gave the Secretary the authority to make reasonable exceptions.
    Consistent with Executive Order 13563 (``Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review'') and Executive Order 13610 (``Identifying and
Reducing Regulatory Burdens''), FRA continually reviews its regulations
and revises them as needed to: (1) Ensure the regulatory burden is not
excessive; (2) clarify the application of existing requirements and
remove requirements that are no longer necessary; and (3) keep pace
with emerging technology, changing operational realities, and safety
concerns. Therefore, through this Notice of Safety Inquiry, FRA seeks
to gather input from the rail industry and State and local authorities
on any regulatory burdens associated with 49 CFR part 222, while still
maintaining the highest level of safety at our Nation's public grade
crossings.
    Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to periodically conduct
retrospective analyses of their existing rules to identify requirements
that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively
burdensome and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal any problematic
regulatory provisions identified during the review. Additionally,
Executive Order 13610 requires agencies to take continuing steps to
reassess regulatory requirements, and where appropriate, to streamline,
improve, or eliminate those requirements. In particular, Executive
Order 13610 emphasizes that agencies should prioritize ``initiatives
that will produce significant quantifiable monetary savings or
significant quantifiable reductions in paperwork burdens.'' Therefore,
FRA is specifically interested in receiving comments on how the agency
can reduce the regulatory burden on the regulated community and the
public in a way that would provide monetary savings or reduce paperwork
burdens without negatively impacting safety at public grade crossings.

Rulemaking Background on 49 CFR Part 222 (``Use of Locomotive Horns at
Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossings'')

    FRA began the rulemaking process for 49 CFR part 222 on January 13,
2000, when it published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Federal Register addressing the use of locomotive horns at public grade
crossings. The rulemaking was mandated by 49 U.S.C. 20153, which
required the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations that
required the use of locomotive horns at public grade crossings, but
gave the Secretary the authority to make reasonable exceptions. FRA
received approximately 3,000 comments in response to the NPRM.
    Due to the substantial and wide-ranging public interest in the
NPRM, FRA conducted a series of twelve public hearings throughout the
United States. More than 350 people testified at these hearings.
    On December 18, 2003, FRA published an Interim Final Rule in the
Federal Register (68 FR 70586). FRA could have proceeded directly to
the final rule stage of the rulemaking. However, FRA chose to issue an
interim final rule instead in order to give the public an opportunity
to comment on changes that had been made to the rule since the NPRM. In
addition, FRA held another public hearing in Washington, DC on February
4, 2004. By the close of the extended comment period, over 1,400
comments had been filed with the agency regarding the Interim Final
Rule.
    FRA then published a final rule in the Federal Register on April
27, 2005 (70 FR 21844). After the final rule was published, FRA
received several petitions for reconsideration and associated letters
in support of the petitions. In addition, the Association of American
Railroads (AAR) submitted a petition for an Emergency Order. On August
17, 2006, FRA published amendments in the Federal Register which
amended and clarified the final rule in response to the petitions for
reconsideration (71 FR 47614). FRA denied AAR's petition for an
Emergency Order.
    Since 2006, FRA has not issued any substantive revisions to 49 CFR
part 222. Therefore, FRA is soliciting public comments on any needed
revisions to the regulations as part of its retrospective review.

Overview of 49 CFR Part 222

    FRA regulations require that engineers sound their locomotive horns
while approaching public grade crossings until the lead locomotive
fully occupies the crossing. See 49 CFR 222.21(a). In general, the
regulations require locomotive engineers to begin to sound the train
horn for a minimum of 15 seconds, and a maximum of 20 seconds, in
advance of public grade crossings. See 49 CFR 222.21(b)(2). Engineers
must also sound the train horn in a standardized pattern of two long,
one short and one long blast and the horn must continue to sound until
the lead locomotive or train car occupies the grade crossing. See 49
CFR 222.21(a). Additionally, the minimum sound level for the locomotive
horn is 96 dB(A), while the maximum sound level is 110 dB(A). See 49
CFR 229.129(a).
    Research and years of experience show that the use of train horns,

flashing lights, and gates--in concert--at grade crossings are
extremely effective in preventing accidents and their resulting
injuries and deaths. The use of the locomotive horn while trains are
approaching public highway-rail grade crossings provides an important
safety warning to pedestrians and motorists who are on or approaching
the crossings. FRA conducted a nationwide study that showed there is a
66.8-percent increase in crossing collisions at crossings equipped with
automatic warning devices consisting of flashing lights and gates when
train horns are not routinely sounded.

Establishing a Quiet Zone

    FRA regulations authorize only public authorities to establish
quiet zones. See 49 CFR 222.37(a). At a minimum, new quiet zones must
be at least one-half mile in length and contain at least one public
grade crossing (i.e., a location where a public highway, road, or
street crosses one or more railroad tracks at grade). See definition of
``quiet zone'' in 49 CFR 222.9 and 222.35(a). Every public grade
crossing in a quiet zone must be equipped at a minimum with active
grade crossing warning devices consisting of flashing lights and gates.
See 49 CFR 222.35(b).
    If a public authority wants to establish a new quiet zone that will
include a pedestrian crossing, a private highway-rail grade crossing
that allows access to the public, or a private highway-rail grade
crossing that provides access to an active industrial or commercial
site, a diagnostic team (made up of representatives from the railroad,
relevant State agencies, the public authority, and FRA, if possible)
must evaluate the pedestrian or private highway-rail grade crossing and
the crossing must be equipped or treated in accordance with the
diagnostic team recommendations. See 49 CFR 222.25(b)(1) and 222.27(b).
In addition, FRA has interpreted 49 CFR part 222 to require that any
private highway-rail grade crossing or pedestrian crossing in a quiet
zone must be located either between the public grade crossings that
serve as quiet zone endpoints or within one-quarter mile of the quiet
zone endpoints.
    Public authorities can establish quiet zones through either the
public authority designation process or the public authority
application process to FRA. See 49 CFR 222.39(a) and (b), respectively.
Because the absence of routine horn sounding at public grade crossings
increases the risk of a crossing collision, in most circumstances the
regulations require public authorities seeking to establish quiet zones
to mitigate additional risk. Public authorities that wish to reduce
existing risk levels within the proposed quiet zone can implement
certain specified pre-approved crossing improvements (i.e.,
Supplementary Safety Measures (SSMs)) to reduce the proposed quiet
zone's risk level to an acceptable level. These improvements include:
Roadway medians or channelization devices to discourage motorists from
driving around a lowered crossing gate; a four-quadrant gate system to
block all lanes of highway traffic; converting a two-way street into a
one-way street and installing crossing gates, and permanent or
temporary (nighttime) closure of the crossing to highway traffic. See
Appendix A to 49 CFR part 222. Public authorities that rely exclusively
on SSMs to reduce existing risk levels within the proposed quiet zone
to an acceptable level can establish quiet zones through the public
authority designation process (i.e., without specific FRA approval).
See 49 CFR 222.39(a). However, public authorities that want to
implement Alternative Safety Measures (ASMs), i.e., modified SSMs or
certain specified non-engineering crossing improvements, within a
proposed quiet zone must apply for FRA approval of the effectiveness
rate (i.e., the amount of risk that is mitigated by deployment of a
safety measure at a crossing) that will be assigned to the crossing
improvement(s).
    As an alternative, communities may also choose to silence routine
locomotive horn sounding through the installation of wayside horns at
public grade crossings. Wayside horns are train-activated stationary
acoustic devices at grade crossings that are directed at highway
traffic as a one-for-one substitute for train horns.
    During the new quiet zone establishment process, the regulations
require public authorities to provide a Notice of Intent to the
railroads that operate within the quiet zone, and to the State agencies
responsible for highway and grade crossing safety, to solicit comments
on the proposed quiet zone. See 49 CFR 222.43(a). However, a quiet zone
may not take effect until all the necessary safety measures have been
installed and are operational. See 49 CFR 222.43(d)(2). The regulations
also require the public authority to provide a Notice of Quiet Zone
Establishment to all affected parties before the quiet zone is
established, including all railroads that operate over crossings within
the proposed quiet zone, State agencies responsible for highway and
grade crossing safety, and FRA. See 49 CFR 222.43(a)(3). The Notice of
Quiet Zone Establishment must provide the date when the quiet zone will
take effect, which cannot be less than 21 days after the date on which
the Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment is mailed. See 49 CFR 222.43(d).

Request for Comments

    While FRA solicits discussion and comments on all of 49 CFR part
222, we particularly encourage comments on the following questions:
     How can FRA decrease the barriers local communities
encounter when establishing a quiet zone?
     Should 49 CFR part 222 allow greater variances in highway-
rail configurations when determining safety calculations for local
communities establishing quiet zones? If so, what variances would be
appropriate?
     Should FRA amend Appendix A to 49 CFR part 222 to include
common alternative grade crossing safety measures and emerging grade
crossing safety technologies? If so, what measures and technologies
would be appropriate?
     What further actions can FRA take to mitigate train horn
noise impacts for local communities while not decreasing safety for
motorists and pedestrians?
     How can FRA change how train horns are sounded at grade
crossings while not decreasing safety for motorists and pedestrians?
     Should railroads be required to file an official opinion
of support or opposition to the establishment of a new quiet zone?
     Should train speed be a factor that is considered when
establishing a new quiet zone?
     Should there be an online process for submitting quiet
zone notices, applications, and required paperwork, in whole or in
part?
     Should FRA be a required recipient of the Notice of Intent
to establish a quiet zone?
     Should FRA provide additional guidance on how to measure
the length of a quiet zone? If so, what guidance would be helpful?
     Should FRA develop a process to address modifications to
grade crossings within an existing quiet zone? If so, please describe
what process would be helpful?

     Should FRA require diagnostic reviews for all grade
crossings within proposed quiet zones instead of requiring them only
for pedestrian (pathway) grade crossings and private grade crossings
that allow access to the public or which provide access to active
industrial or commercial sites?
     How should FRA address safety measures that no longer meet
the requirements for SSMs or ASMs?

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 29, 2016.
Sarah E. Feinberg,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-04831 Filed 3-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 155 (Friday, August 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 47913]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19582]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance;
Southern Illinois Airport, Carbondale, IL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent of waiver with respect to land.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering a
proposal to change a portion of airport land from aeronautical use to
non-aeronautical use at the Southern Illinois Airport in Carbondale,
Illinois. The proposal consists of a total of 4.34 acres, Parcel 1F
(3.77 acres) and Parcel 2F (0.57 acres), located on the southwest part
of the airport. This notice announces that the FAA is considering the
release of the subject airport property at Southern Illinois Airport,
from all federal land covenants. Approval does not constitute a
commitment by the FAA to financially assist in disposal of the subject
airport property nor a determination that all measures covered by the
program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA.
    In accordance with section 47107(h) of Title 49, United States
Code, this notice is required to be published in the Federal Register
30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that requires the
property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 10, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary D. Wilson, Program Manager, 2300
East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018. Telephone Number 847-294-
7631/FAX Number<PHONE_NUMBER>. Documents reflecting this FAA action may
be reviewed at this same location by appointment or at the Southern
Illinois Airport, P.O. Box 1086, Carbondale, Illinois 62903.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Following is a legal description of the
properties being released located in Jackson County, Illinois, and
described as follows:

Parcel 1F

    Part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 31, Township 8 South,
Range 1 and part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of
Section 6, Township 9 South, Range 1 West of the Third Principal
Meridian in Jackson County, Illinois and being more particularly
described as follows:
    Commencing at the Northwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter of aforesaid Section 6; thence along the North line
of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Aforesaid Section
6, South 89 Degrees 20 Minutes 38 Seconds East, 36.34 feet; thence,
North 00 Degrees 39 Minutes 22 Seconds East, 51.60 feet to the point of
beginning; thence, North 60 Degrees 04 Minutes 54 Seconds East, 870.61
feet to the West Right-Of-Way of Airport Entrance Road 120 feet wide;
thence along said West Right-Of-Way of Airport Entrance Road, South 00
Degrees 59 Minutes 50 Seconds West, 804.39 feet; thence along a curve
to the right with a radius of 3760.40 feet, having a chord bearing
South 02 Degrees 15 Minutes 44 Seconds West for a distance of 166.04
feet, and an arc distance of 166.05 feet; thence departing said Right-
of-Way, North 90 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds West, 136.56 feet;
thence along a non tangent curve to the left with a radius of 857.56
feet, having a chord bearing North 14 Degrees 26 Minutes 02 Seconds
East for a distance of 156.40 feet, and an arc distance of 156.61 feet;
thence, South 89 Degrees 20 Minutes 38 Seconds East, 51.00 feet;
thence, North 00 Degrees 39 Minutes 22 Seconds East, 393.64 feet;
thence North 89 Degrees 20 Minutes 38 Seconds West, 35.00 feet; thence
along a non tangent curve to the left with a radius of 224.00 feet,
having a chord bearing North 35 Degrees 30 Minutes 32 Seconds West for
a distance of 273.80 feet, and an arc distance of 294.58 feet; thence,
South 60 Degrees 55 Minutes 32 Seconds West, 150.00 feet; thence, South
0 Degrees 39 Minutes 22 Seconds West, 554.92 feet; thence, North 90
Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds West, 30 Feet; thence, North 0 Degrees 39
Minutes 22 Seconds East, 407.57 feet; thence, North 89 Degrees 20
Minutes 38 Seconds West, 190.00 feet; thence, South 0 Degrees 39
Minutes 22 Seconds West, 305.00 feet; thence, North 89 Degrees 20
Minutes 38 Seconds West, 10.00 feet; thence, North 0 Degrees 39 Minutes
22 Seconds East, 255.00 feet; thence North 89 Degrees 20 Minutes 38
Seconds West, 135.00 feet; thence, North 0 Degrees 39 Minutes 22
Seconds East, 34.57 feet to the point of beginning. Containing an area
of 164,081 square feet or 3.77 acres, more or less.

Part 2F

    Part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 31, Township 8 South,
Range 1, and part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of
Section 6, Township 9 South, Range 1 West of the Third Principal
Meridian in Jackson County, Illinois and being more particularly
described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of the
Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of aforesaid Section 6;
thence along the North line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter of aforesaid Section 6, South 89 Degrees 20 Minutes 38 Seconds
East, 36.34 feet; thence, North 00 Degrees 39 Minutes 22 Seconds East,
17.03 feet to the point of beginning; thence, South 89 Degrees 20
Minutes 38 Seconds East, 20 feet; thence South 0 Degrees 39 Minutes 22
Seconds West, 255.00 feet, thence South 89 Degrees 20 Minutes 38
Seconds East, 125.00 feet; thence South 0 Degrees 39 Minutes 22 Seconds
West, 80 feet; thence South 89 Degrees 20 Minutes 38 Seconds East, 190
feet; thence South 0 Degrees 39 Minutes 22 Seconds West, 22.57 feet;
thence North 90 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds West, 335.02 feet; thence
North 0 Degrees 39 Minutes 22 Seconds East, 361.41 feet to the point of
beginning; containing an area of 24.904 square feet or 0.57 acres, more
or less.

    Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on, July 9, 2012.
Chad Oliver,
Acting Manager, Chicago Airports District Office, FAA, Great Lakes
Region.
[FR Doc. 2012-19582 Filed 8-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 197 (Tuesday, October 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61537-61539]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25862]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76083; File No. SR-Phlx-2015-79]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Active Specialized Quote
Feed Port Fee

October 6, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 23, 2015, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to refund Specialists \3\ and Market Makers
\4\ a certain portion of the variable Active SQF Port Fee that was
effective and operative in the month of April 2015 and paid by these
Exchange members. The proposed refund is unique to April 2015 only, and
arose when a filing to delete the variable Active SQF Port Fee \5\
operative on April 1, 2015 was rejected and was then re-filed with the
operative date of May 1, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A ``Specialist'' is an Exchange member who is registered as
an options specialist pursuant to Exchange Rule 1020(a).
    \4\ A ``Market Maker'' includes Registered Options Traders
(Exchange Rule 1014(b)(i) and (ii)), which includes Streaming Quote
Traders (Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A)) and Remote Streaming Quote
Traders (Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B)).
    \5\ Exchange fees are found in the NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Pricing
Schedule (``Pricing Schedule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to refund Specialists and Market Makers a
certain portion of the variable Active SQF Port Fee that was effective
and operative in the month of April 2015 and paid by these Exchange
members. The fees proposed to be refunded (the ``Refund'') represent
the difference between the variable Active SQF Port Fees that were in
place in Section VII B. of the Pricing Schedule during the month of
April 2015 (``variable Active SQF Port Fees''), and the current one
price Active SQF Fee with the operative date of May 1, 2015 (``Active
SQF Port Fee''). The Refund is unique to April 2015 only, and arose
when a filing to delete the monthly variable Active SQF Port Fee
operative on April 1, 2015 was rejected for reasons unrelated to the
changes proposed in this filing, and was re-filed with the operative
date of May 1, 2015.\6\ The Exchange did not intend to impose the
variable Active SQF Port Fees in April but rather intended to apply the
Active SQF Port Fee and is, therefore, proposing this unique, one-time
Refund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74833 (April 29,
2015), 80 FR 25749 (May 5, 2015) (SR-Phlx-2015-36) (immediately
effective filing that, among other things, instituted the one price
Active SQF Port Fee in lieu of a variable Active SQF Port Fee with
the operative date of May 1, 2015) (the ``one price Active SQF Fee
filing''). See also Equity Trader Alerts at http://nasdaqtrader.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=ETA2015-37 and http://www.phlx.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=OTA2015-9 (the ``alerts''). The alerts show how
some members may have anticipated lower Active SQF Port Fees but had
to pay higher fees because the filing to delete the variable Active
SQF Port Fee was initially rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SQF is an interface that enables Specialists, Streaming Quote
Traders (``SQTs'') \7\ and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQTs'')
\8\ to connect and send quotes into Phlx XL.\9\ Active SQF Ports are
ports that receive inbound quotes at any time within that month. Active
SQF Ports allow users to access information such as execution reports,
execution report messages, auction notifications, and administrative
data through a single feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ An SQT is defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A) as a
Registered Options Trader (``ROT'') who has received permission from
the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically
in options to which such SQT is assigned.
    \8\ An RSQT is defined in Exchange Rule in 1014(b)(ii)(B) as an
ROT that is a member or member organization with no physical trading
floor presence who has received permission from the Exchange to
generate and submit option quotations electronically in options to
which such RSQT has been assigned. An RSQT may only submit such
quotations electronically from off the floor of the Exchange.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63034 (October 4,
2010), 75 FR 62441 (October 8, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-124) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness regarding sending certain
information over SQF).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The variable Active SQF Port Fees became operative on April 1,
2015. The proposal to replace the variable Active SQF Port Fee with the
current Active SQF Port Fee operative April 1, 2015 was rejected and
was refiled with the operative date of May 1, 2015.\10\ The Active SQF
Port Fee with the operative date of May 1, 2015 is not tiered or
variable but rather is one price akin to other current port fees.\11\
The variable Active SQF Port Fee, which like the current Active SQF
Port Fee is a monthly fee, was therefore in effect only from April 1 to
April 30, 2015 (the ``April billing period'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 6.
    \11\ See, e.g., Order Entry Port Fee and Clearing Trade
Interface (``CTI'') Port Fee in Section VII B. of the Pricing
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The variable Active SQF Fee was implemented in December of last
year with a delayed operative date of April 1, 2015, in large measure
to encourage members and member organizations to work through the now-
completed technology refresh (``technology refresh'' or
``refresh'').\12\ The goal of the technology refresh (to deploy state-
of-the-art hardware and software architecture for a more efficient and
robust infrastructure) has been met. As the Exchange had anticipated,
Specialists and Market Makers have benefitted from the efficiency of
the service that is available to them as a result of the refresh. While
Specialists and Market Makers were required to make network and other
technical changes in order to connect to the Phlx

system via SQF, the Exchange believes that member costs declined
overall as a result of the more efficient connectivity offered by the
refresh. The Exchange's proposal to delete the variable Active SQF Port
Fee, which was re-filed with the operative date of May 1, 2015 because
of the monthly nature of the fee, reduced the Active SQF Port Fees paid
by the majority of Market Makers on the Exchange. The Exchange's
proposal is simply to refund eligible Specialists and Market Makers the
overage or difference between the variable Active SQF Port Fee that was
paid in the month of April 2015 and the amount that these Specialist
and Market Makers would have paid if the Active SQF Port Fee was
operative on April 1 rather than on May 1 (the ``overage''). Moreover,
because the current Active SQF Port Fee did not become operative until
May 1, 2015 and the fee reduction did not occur as intended on April 1,
Specialists and Market Makers were not able to take advantage of the
cheaper Active SQF Port Fee and had to pay for the more expensive
variable Active SQF Port Fee in the April billing period. The Exchange
believes that the proposed one-time Refund, for the April billing
period only, is reasonable and proper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73687 (November 25,
2014), 79 FR 71485 (December 2, 2014) (SR-Phlx-2014-73) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness that, among other things, during
the Phlx technology refresh instituted the variable Active SQF Port
Fee operative on April 1, 2015) (the ``technology refresh filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, per Section VII B. of the Pricing Schedule all
Specialists and Market Makers on the Exchange are subject to an Active
SQF Port Fee of $1,250 per port per month. Per note 26 in Section VII
B., which is applicable to this section, the Active SQF Port Fee is
capped at $42,000 per month. During the April billing period, all
Specialists and Market Makers on the Exchange were subject to the
following variable Active SQF Port Fee:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Monthly
                  Number of active SQF port                     fee per
                                                                  port
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................     $2,500
2-6..........................................................      4,000
7 and over...................................................     15,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cap is likewise applicable to the variable Active SQF Port Fee. The
proposal simply refunds the overage or difference between the variable
Active SQF Port Fee paid and the fixed Active SQF Port Fee (in each
instance capped at $42,000).\13\ For example, if Specialist A was
assessed and paid a variable Active SQF Port Fee of $16,000 for the
month of April 2015 (4 ports at $4000 per port) whereas he would have
paid only a $5,000 Active SQF Port Fee if this fee had been operative
in April (4 ports at $1250 per port), his Refund amount would be
$11,000. Or, if Market Maker B was assessed and paid a variable Active
SQF Port Fee of $42,000 for the month of April 2015 (8 ports at $15,000
per port for an uncapped total of $120,000, to which the cap is
applied) whereas he would have paid only a $10,000 Active SQF Port Fee
if this fee had been operative in April (8 ports at $1,250 per port),
his Refund amount would be $32,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ A few Specialists and Market Makers hit the cap of $42,000
for the variable Active SQF Port Fee and the cap of $42,000 for the
fixed Active SQF Port Fee. As a result, they did not, in fact, pay
any overage and are not eligible for a Refund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Refund of overages paid by Specialists and Market
Makers to the Exchange is, as discussed, uniquely applicable only to
the April billing period. The Exchange believes that its proposal is
reasonable and proper under the circumstances, and is consistent with
the Act.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\14\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls [sic] and is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest; and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The proposal allows the Exchange to refund, for
the April billing period only (April 1 to April 30, 2015), overages of
assessed and paid variable Active SQF Port Fees as compared to Active
SQF Port Fees. The Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonable,
proper and correct under the circumstances, and reflects the Exchange's
continuing efforts to improve its market and market quality in order to
perfect a free and open market and national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the April billing period of April 1 to April 30, 2015 the
Exchange had in place a variable Active SQF Port Fee applicable to
Specialists and Market Makers that exceeded the current Active SQF Port
Fee, which became operative on May 1, 2015. This created the overages
that are proposed to be refunded to eligible Specialists and Market
Makers. That is, Specialists and Market Makers paid more in April than
was anticipated by the Exchange and members, as compared to the one
price Active SQF Port Fee that has been operative since May 1, 2015,
and the Exchange proposes to refund the difference. Only those
Specialists and Market Makers that were assessed and in fact paid an
overage are eligible for the Refund. For example, if Specialist A was
assessed and paid a variable Active SQF Port Fee of $16,000 for the
month of April 2015 (4 ports at $4000 per port) whereas he would have
paid only a $5,000 Active SQF Port Fee if this fee had been operative
in April (4 ports at $1250 per port), his Refund amount would be
$11,000. Or, if Market Maker B was assessed and paid a variable Active
SQF Port Fee of $42,000 for the month of April 2015 (8 ports at $15,000
per port for an uncapped total of $120,000, to which the cap is
applied) whereas he would have paid only a $10,000 Active SQF Port Fee
if this fee had been operative in April (8 ports at $1,250 per port),
his Refund amount would be $32,000.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to refund eligible
Specialists and Market Makers that were assessed per the Pricing
Schedule and actually paid an overage. The Exchange's intention was to
delete the variable Active SQF Port Fee and institute the Active SQF
Port Fee operative April 1; however, the proposal to do so was
rejected. The Exchange then filed a proposal that was in fact
instituted to be operative on May 1, 2015 since the fees regarding the
Active SQF Ports are monthly. The Exchange believes that it is
reasonable and equitable to assess all firms the same Active SQF Port
Fee as opposed to a variable fee and refund the overage to eligible
Specialists and Market Makers because, as discussed, the variable
Active SQF Port Fee is more expensive for the great majority of
Specialists and Market Makers; this was not the expected outcome of the
technology refresh. In addition, Specialists and Market Makers have, as
a group, successfully worked with the Exchange through the technology
refresh and as a result most such members need, and use, fewer ports to
connect to the Exchange's matching engine.\16\ The

proposed Refund is a unique, one-time situation that applies only to
the April billing period. The Exchange believes that its well-
formulated fee structure in the Pricing Schedule, which includes the
Active SQF Port Fees, continues to work to attract liquidity to the
Exchange. This benefits market participants and provides the
opportunity for increased order interaction on the Exchange. The
Exchange continues to incentivize members and member organizations,
through the Exchange's Pricing Schedule, to select Phlx as a venue for
bringing liquidity and trading by offering competitive pricing. Such
competitive, differentiated pricing exists today on other options
exchanges. The Exchange's goal is creating and increasing incentives to
attract orders to the Exchange that will, in turn, benefit all market
participants through increased liquidity at the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Because of the internal technologic configuration and
technology development required by the technology refresh, a few
members still need to keep the same number of ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to refund Specialists and
Market Makers as discussed is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the Exchange will refund all Specialists and Market Makers that
are eligible for such Refunds. A few Specialists and Market Makers hit
the cap of $42,000 for the variable Active SQF Port Fee and the cap of
$42,000 for the fixed Active SQF Port Fee. As a result, they did not,
in fact, pay any overage and are not eligible for a Refund.\17\ The
Exchange believes that this is equitable because the Refunds will be
given to all Specialists and Market Makers that are eligible. The
Exchange believes that this is not unfairly discriminatory because the
Refunds will be given only to those Specialists and Market Makers that,
in fact, paid an overage for the April billing period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose an undue burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange believes that offering Specialists and Market Makers
the opportunity to utilize certain Active SQF Ports and returning to
eligible Specialists and Market Makers the overages between the
variable Active SQF Port Fee and fixed Active SQF Port Fee for the
April billing period does not burden competition. The Exchange
continues to charge all Specialists and Market Makers the Active SQF
Port Fee.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
twelve options exchanges, in which market participants can easily and
readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate.
Accordingly, the fees that are assessed by the Exchange are influenced
by these robust market forces and therefore must remain competitive
with fees charged and rebates paid by other venues and therefore must
continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that
opt to direct orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues.
    Finally, in establishing the pricing structure for Active SQF
Ports, the Exchange has considered the competitive nature of the market
and believes that it has considered all relevant factors and has not
considered irrelevant factors in order to establish fair, reasonable,
and not unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of
fees among all users. The Exchange believes that its proposal to return
the overages from the April billing period complement this process.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (a) By order approve
or disapprove such 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 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-Phlx-2015-79 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-Phlx-2015-79. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2015-79 and should be
submitted on or before November 3, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25862 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 10, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67440-67441]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26524]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG20-56-000.
    Applicants: Crooked Run Solar, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Crooked Run Solar, LLC.

    Filed Date: 12/4/19.
    Accession Number: 20191204-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/19.

    Docket Numbers: EG20-57-000.
    Applicants: Cubico Crooked Run Lessee, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Cubico Crooked Run Lessee, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/4/19.
    Accession Number: 20191204-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/19.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2768-003.
    Applicants: Empire Generating Co, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Empire
Generating Co, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/4/19.
    Accession Number: 20191204-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-57-001; ER20-339-001; ER20-58-001; ER19-115-
001; ER20-59-001; ER20-27-001; ER16-2019-002; ER17-1607-001; ER17-1608-
001; ER17-318-001; ER16-2520-001; ER19-8-001; ER19-119-001; ER19-2476-
001; ER18-97-001; ER20-422-001.
    Applicants: GA Solar 3, LLC, Twiggs County Solar, LLC, FL Solar 4,
LLC, FL Solar 5, LLC, AZ Solar 1, LLC, Wright Solar Park LLC, Five
Points Solar Park LLC, Sunray Energy 2, LLC, Sunray Energy 3 LLC, Three
Peaks Power, LLC, Grand View PV Solar Two LLC, Sweetwater Solar, LLC,
Techren Solar I LLC, Techren Solar II LLC, MS Solar 3, LLC, FL Solar 1,
LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of GA Solar 3,
LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/4/19.
    Accession Number: 20191204-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-509-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ISA and ICSA SA Nos. 5245
and 5250; Queue No. AB2-067/AC1-044/AD2-189 to be effective 5/13/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/3/19.
    Accession Number: 20191203-5184.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-510-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-12-04_SA 3378 NIPSCO-
Poplar Wind Project GIA (J883) to be effective 11/19/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/4/19.
    Accession Number: 20191204-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-511-000.
    Applicants: Wilderness Line Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Open Access Transmission
Tariff Baseline Filing to be effective 12/5/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/4/19.
    Accession Number: 20191204-5099.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-512-000.
    Applicants: Click Energy LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Click Energy MBR Application
Filing to be effective 1/3/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/4/19.
    Accession Number: 20191204-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-513-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: LGIA Aurora Solar LLC,
Camino Solar SA No. 237 to be effective 12/5/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/4/19.
    Accession Number: 20191204-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-514-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Otter
Tail Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-12-04_SA 3384 OTP-
Dakota Range III FSA (J488) Hankinson-Wahpeton to be effective 2/3/
2020.
    Filed Date: 12/4/19.
    Accession Number: 20191204-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-515-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Otter
Tail Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-12-04_SA 3385 OTP-Deuel
Harvest FSA (J526) Hankinson-Wahpeton to be effective 2/3/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/4/19.
    Accession Number: 20191204-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/19.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH20-4-000.
    Applicants: Unison Energy, LLC, AIM Universal Holdings, LLC, Hunt
Companies, Inc.
    Description: Unison Energy, LLC, et al. submits FERC-65A Notice of
Change in Fact to Exemption Notification.
    Filed Date: 12/3/19.
    Accession Number: 20191203-5264.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 4, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-26524 Filed 12-9-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


From:
Tunno, Brett J<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Monday, June 8, 2020 8:40 AM
To:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Scheetz, Jonelle S<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Michalik, Sarah K<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: [External]-Coke ICR - Questionnaire and Source Tests - USS Clairton

Good morning Dr. Jones,

Attached are the 2014 and 2015 AEIs for the Clairton Plant, along with an updated Enclosure 1 spreadsheet.

Thanks,

Brett Tunno, DrPH, CPH
Environmental Affairs
United States Steel Corporation
Office:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

<< 16c_Pt1_2014_AEI.xlsx >>
<< 16c_Pt2_2015_AEI.xls >>
<< USS-Coke-Enclosure-1-Questionnaire ICR-draft summary-review-August-5-2019-USS Comments.xlsx >>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 5:26 PM
To: Tunno, Brett J<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Scheetz, Jonelle S<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Michalik, Sarah K<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: [External]-Coke ICR - Questionnaire and Source Tests - USS Clairton

Hello - Thank you very much for the QA review of your source test data for USS-Clairton-PA. We have no further questions on the test data file.

However, in the Questionnaire, we noticed that for USS-Clairton-PA there were entries of  "POSTPONED" used for some of the answers in tab `Part II Q16b&c' in the review file that was re-submitted to us (see attached and below).

Can you please fill out the information in Q16-b and c and return to me in 30 days? If there is more of a story behind these entries, please let me know,
16.b. If major source of HAP, list each process unit that emits HAP.
16.b-pt.1. Identify each unit according to its permit/state ID number
16.b-pt.2. If no permit ID number exists, the facility ID number should be used.
16.b-pt.3. If no ID number is assigned at all, then provide a description of each unit and its location within the facility
16.c-pt.1. If major source of HAP, provide 2014 emission inventories for each process unit
16.c-pt.2. If major source of HAP, provide 2015 emission inventories for each process unit

Thankyou again for your cooperation with the ICR, especially the source testing and the extra effort needed to test the quench tower.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals&Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC27711Tele:(919)541-5251Fax(919)541-3207
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."- anon.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 229 (Thursday, November 30, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56723-56725]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25719]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1044; Product Identifier 2017-NE-38-AD; Amendment
39-19110; AD 2017-24-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; CFM International S.A. Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
CFM International S.A. (CFM) LEAP-1A turbofan engines. This AD requires
removal, inspection, rework, and re-identification of the high-pressure
turbine (HPT) stage 2 disk, part number (P/N) 2466M52G03. This AD was
prompted by a quality escape at the manufacturer that resulted in
cracks appearing during forging of the HPT stage 2 disks. We are
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 15, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 15,
2017.
    We must receive comments on this AD by January 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact CFM
International Inc., Aviation Operations Center, 1 Neumann Way, M/D Room
285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected]. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
1044; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher McGuire, Aerospace
Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We learned from CFM that there was a quality escape at the
manufacturer that resulted in cracks appearing during forging of CFM
LEAP-1A HPT stage 2 disks. This condition, if not corrected, could
result in failure of the HPT stage 2 disk, uncontained release of the
disk, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane. We are issuing
this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed CFM Service Bulletin (SB) LEAP-1A-72-00-0167-01A-930A-
D, Issue 001, dated September 28, 2017. The SB describes procedures for
removal, inspection, rework, and re-identification of HPT stage 2 disk,
P/N 2466M52G03. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

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

AD Requirements

    This AD requires removal, inspection, rework, and re-identification
of the HPT stage 2 disk, P/N 2466M52G03.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because the compliance time for the required action is shorter than the
time necessary for the public to comment and for us to publish the
final rule. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity
for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reason
stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment
effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public
comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or
arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA 2017-
1044 and Product Identifier 2017-NE-38-AD at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final rule. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
final rule because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this final rule.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 7 engines installed on airplanes
of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove, inspect, rework, and re-        560 work-hours x $85 per              $0         $47,600        $333,200
 identify HPT stage 2 disk.              hour = $47,600.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2017-24-06 CFM International S.A.: Amendment 39-19110; Docket No.
FAA-2017-1044; Product Identifier 2017-NE-38-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 15, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to CFM International S.A. (CFM) LEAP-1A23, LEAP-
1A24, LEAP-1A24E1, LEAP-1A26, LEAP-1A26E1, LEAP-1A30, LEAP-1A32,
LEAP-1A33, LEAP-1A33B2 and LEAP-1A35A engines with a high-pressure
turbine (HPT) stage 2 disk, with a part number (P/N) 2466M52G03 and
serial number (S/N) listed in Table 1 of CFM Service Bulletin (SB)
LEAP-1A SB 72-0167-01A-930A-D, Issue 001, dated September 28, 2017,
installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 7250, Turbine Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a quality escape at the manufacturer
that resulted in cracks appearing during forging of the HPT stage 2
disks. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPT stage 2
disks. The unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result in
uncontained release of the HPT stage 2 disks, damage to the engine,
and damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Prior to accumulating 1,200 engine cycles since new after the
effective date of this AD, remove, inspect, rework, and re-identify
the HPT stage 2 disk, P/N 2466M52G03, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 5.B.(2), in CFM SB LEAP-1A-
72-00-0167-01A-930A-D, Issue 001, dated September 28, 2017.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (i) of this AD. You may email your request
to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Chris McGuire,
Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) CFM Service Bulletin LEAP-1A-72-00-0167-01A-930A-D, Issue
001, dated September 28, 2017.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For CFM service information identified in this AD, contact
CFM International Inc., Aviation Operations Center, 1 Neumann Way,
M/D Room 285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 877-
432-3329; email: [email protected].
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine and
Propeller Standards

Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 21, 2017.
Robert J. Ganley,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-25719 Filed 11-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 5, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47330-47331]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16459]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0053; FRL-10012-32]

Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals in or on Various Commodities (June 2020)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Filing of petition and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of an initial
filing of a pesticide petition requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 4, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Please note that due to the public health emergency the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room was closed to public visitors on March
31, 2020. Our EPA/DC staff will continue to provide customer service
via email, phone, and webform. For further information on EPA/DC
services, docket contact information and the current status of the EPA/
DC and Reading Room, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution
Prevention Division (7511P), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The mailing address for each
contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's
name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the
end of each pesticide petition summary.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is announcing receipt of a pesticide petition filed under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR [part 174 and/or part 180] for residues of
pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is
taking public comment on the request before responding to the
petitioner. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time.
EPA has determined that the pesticide petition described in this
document contains data or information prescribed in FFDCA section
408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated
the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the pesticide petition. After considering the
public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be
warranted. Additional data may be

needed before EPA can make a final determination on this pesticide
petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition that is the
subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a
docket EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this
petition is available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA
is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

Amended Tolerances for Non-Inerts

    PP 0E8828. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0235). The Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, proposes upon
establishment of tolerances referenced in this document under ``New
Tolerances'' for PP# 0E8828, to remove the existing tolerance in 40 CFR
180.511 for residues of buprofezin, 2-[(1,1-
dimethylethyl)imino]tetrahydro-3(1-methylethyl)-5-phenyl-4H-1,3,5-
thiadiazin-4-one in or on the raw agricultural commodities in or on
Bean, snap, succulent at 0.02 parts per million (ppm). Contact: RD.

New Tolerances for Non-Inerts

    1. PP 0E8821. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0113). Interregional Research
Project #4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500
College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to
establish tolerances with regional registrations in 40 CFR part
180.633(c) for residues of the herbicide, florasulam, N-(2, 6-
difluorophenyl)-8-fluoro-5-methoxy (1, 2, 4) triazole (1, 5-
c)pyrimidine-2-sulfonamide, including its metabolites and degradates,
in or on grass, forage at 0.01 parts per million (ppm) and grass, hay
at 0.02 ppm. Compliance with the tolerance levels is to be determined
by measuring only florasulam in or on the commodities. The High
Performance Liquid Chromatography with Tandem Mass Spectrometry is used
to measure and evaluate the chemical. Contact: RD.
    2. PP 0E8828. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0235). The Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to
establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180.511 for residues of
buprofezin, 2-[(1,1-dimethylethyl)imino]tetrahydro-3(1-methylethyl)-5-
phenyl-4H-1,3,5-thiadiazin-4-one in or on the raw agricultural
commodities: Asparagus bean, edible podded at 0.02 parts per million
(ppm); Bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 0.08 ppm, Catjang bean, edible
podded at 0.02 ppm; Chinese longbean, edible podded at 0.02 ppm;
Cowpea, edible podded at 0.02 ppm; French bean, edible podded at 0.02
ppm; Garden bean, edible podded at 0.02 ppm; Green bean, edible podded
at 0.02 ppm; Goa bean, edible podded at 0.02 ppm; Guar bean, edible
podded at 0.02 ppm; Jackbean, edible podded at 0.02 ppm; Kidney bean,
edible podded at 0.02 ppm; Lablab bean, edible podded at 0.02 ppm; Navy
bean, edible podded at 0.02 ppm; Moth bean, edible podded at 0.02 ppm;
Mung bean, edible podded at 0.02 ppm; Rice bean, edible podded at 0.02
ppm; Scarlet runner bean, edible podded at 0.02 ppm; Snap bean, edible
podded at 0.02 ppm; Sword bean, edible podded at 0.02 ppm; Urd bean,
edible podded at 0.02 ppm;; Vegetable soybean, edible podded at 0.02
ppm; Velvet bean, edible podded at 0.02 ppm; Wax bean, edible podded;
Winged pea, edible podded at 0.02 ppm; and Yardlong bean, edible podded
at 0.02 ppm.
    In addition to the proposed tolerances, the IR-4 Project requests
that EPA permit the buprofezin label instructions currently stated as
``For greenhouse tomatoes and peppers'', be revised to ``For Fruiting
Vegetables (Crop Group 8-10)'', thus allowing buprofezin applications
to all greenhouse-grown fruiting vegetables.
    The enforcement analytical methods are available in PAM I and PAM
II for the enforcement of buprofezin tolerances, which include gas
chromatography methods with nitrogen phosphorus detection (GC/NPD), and
a gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) method for confirmation
of buprofezin residues in plant commodities to measure and evaluate
buprofezin. Contact: RD.
    3. PP 9F8808. EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0335. ISK BIOSCIENCES Corporation,
7470 Auburn Road, Suite A, Concord, OH, 44077, requests to establish
tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide,
pyriofenone in or on grape at 0.8 parts per million (ppm); raisin at
2.5 ppm; and fruit, small vine climbing subgroup 13-07E, except grape
at 1.5 ppm. The liquid chromatography-MS/MS is used to measure and
evaluate the chemical pyriofenone. Contact: RD.

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: July 10, 2020.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2020-16459 Filed 8-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P