[Federal Register: October 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 195)]
[Notices]
[Page 52278-52279]
[DOCID:fr09oc09-116]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60765; File No. SR-NSCC-2009-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Revise Fees for Certain Insurance and Retirement
Processing Services

October 1, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on September 10, 2009, the
National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared primarily by NSCC. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise fees for
certain retirement and insurance processing services.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NSCC 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. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B) and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by NSCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise fees for
certain insurance and retirement processing services provided by NSCC
to better align fees with the costs of delivering services.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This proposed rule change filing replaces proposed rule
change filing SR-NSCC-2009-06, which was withdrawn by NSCC on
September 9, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effective October 1, 2009, NSCC is adopting an incentive discount
for Registered Representative (``REP'') and Brokerage Identification
Number (``BIN'') transactions, a subset of In-Force Transaction types
that are formally called ``Brokerage Identification Number Change
Requests,'' ``Brokerage Identification Number Change Confirms,''
``Registered Representative Change Requests,'' and ``Registered
Representative Change Confirms.'' The first $350 that NSCC charges to a
member each month for such transactions shall be waived. Further,
effective October 1, 2009, a member that submits any of these
transaction types will receive a credit equaling 30% of its monthly fee
for BIN and REP transactions.\4\ The 30% credit will then be applied
against fees that are charged to a member for NSCC's established
Insurance and Retirement Products (called ``Core Products'').
Established products that are designated as Core Products are
Positions, Commissions, Financial Activity Reporting, Applications/
Subsequent Premiums, and Asset Pricing. The purpose of bundling
products in this fashion and providing a credit in connection with
usage of new products is to compensate members for the

programming and other costs associated with new product adoption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The credit will be calculated by subtracting the $350
discount from the member's total monthly BIN and REP fees and then
multiplying that resulting amount by 30%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, effective October 1, 2009, NSCC is adopting a
reduction in fees that may be incurred by a member due to extraordinary
events, such as mergers or mass reconciliations, that generate
unusually high transaction volume for a limited duration. A member must
arrange with NSCC in advance for the appropriate reduction in fees in
such circumstances. With respect to transaction types for which the
member has no history of prior usage, the credit will be 85% of the
transaction fees chargeable for the transaction type. There will be an
additional credit of 5% if the member continues use of the transaction
type in its usual processing flows after the event. With respect to
transaction types for which the member has a history of prior usage,
the credit will be in an amount sufficient to produce an aggregate fee
that is no more than 120% of the average amount charged to the member
for such transactions in the prior three months.
    NSCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \5\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to NSCC because the proposed rule
change updates NSCC's fee schedule and provides for equitable
allocation of fees among its members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact or impose any burden on competition.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet
been solicited or received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by NSCC.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \7\ thereunder
because the proposed rule change is establishing or changing a due,
fee, or other charge applicable only to a member. At any time within
sixty days of the filing of such rule change, the Commission may
summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     Electronic comments may be submitted by using the
Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml), or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NSCC-2009-08 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2009-08. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filings also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of NSCC and on NSCC's
Web site at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rule_filings/nscc/2009.php. 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-NSCC-2009-08 and should be
submitted on or before October 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-24350 Filed 10-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34229-34232]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14132]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R10-RCRA-2011-0973; FRL-9684-6]

Idaho: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program; Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Idaho applied to EPA for final authorization of certain
changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, as amended (RCRA). On February 29, 2012, EPA
published a proposed rule to authorize the changes and opened a public
comment period under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-RCRA-2011-0973. The comment
period closed on March 30, 2012. EPA received two comments on the
proposed rule. EPA's responses are included in the section B of this
final rule labeled ``What Were the Comments on EPA's Proposed Rule.''
EPA has decided that the revisions to the Idaho hazardous waste
management program satisfy all the requirements necessary to qualify
for final authorization and EPA is authorizing these revisions to
Idaho's authorized hazardous waste management program in this final
rule.

DATES: Final authorization for the revisions to the hazardous waste
management program in Idaho shall be effective at 1 p.m. EST on July
11, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Region 10 Library,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101. The EPA Region
10 Library is open from 9:00 a.m. to noon, and 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Region 10 Library
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nina Kocourek, U.S. EPA, Region 10,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Mail Stop AWT-122, Seattle, Washington
98101, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why are revisions to State programs necessary?

    States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA
section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste
program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent
than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must
change their programs and ask EPA to authorize their changes. Changes
to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or
regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur.
Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to
EPA's regulations codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.
    Idaho's hazardous waste management program received final
authorization effective on April 9, 1990 (55 FR 11015, March 29, 1990).
Subsequently, EPA authorized revisions to the State's program effective
June 5, 1992 (57 FR 11580, April 6, 1992), August 10, 1992 (57 FR
24757, June 11, 1992), June 11, 1995 (60 FR 18549, April 12, 1995),
January 19, 1999 (63 FR 56086, October 21, 1998), July 1, 2002 (67 FR
44069, July 1, 2002), March 10, 2004 (69 FR 11322, March 10, 2004),
July 22, 2005 (70 FR 42273, July 22, 2005), February 26, 2007 (72 FR
8283, February 26, 2007), and December 23, 2008 (73 FR 78647, December
23, 2008).
    This final rule addresses a program revision application that Idaho
submitted to EPA in October 2011, in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21,
seeking authorization of changes to the State program. On February 29,
2012, EPA published a proposed (77 FR 12228) stating the Agency's
intent to grant final authorization for revisions to Idaho's hazardous
waste management program. The public comment period on this proposed
rule ended on March 30, 2012.

B. What were the comments on EPA's proposed rule?

    EPA received two comments during the public comment period which
ended March 30, 2012. One commenter questioned whether Idaho's failure
to object to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)'s decision concerning
replacement capability for the disposal of remote-handled low-level
radioactive waste ((LLW) generated at the Idaho National Laboratory
(INL) rendered the Idaho hazardous waste program ineligible for RCRA
authorization. The commenter was particularly concerned that the DOE
based its decision, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), for the
Remote-Handled Low-Level Radioactive Waste Onsite Disposal (RHLLWOD) on
an Environmental Assessment (EA) under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) rather than on a more detailed Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). EPA does not agree with the commenter. The RHLLWOD
will not be used for hazardous waste or mixed waste. Mixed waste is
defined at 42 U.S.C. 1004(41) as waste that contains both hazardous
waste and source, special nuclear, or by-product material subject to
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq. EPA's RCRA
regulations at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(4) expressly exclude source, special
nuclear or byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 from the definition of solid waste. A waste that is not a solid
waste cannot be a hazardous waste subject to Subtitle C regulation
under RCRA. Consequently, the RHLLWOD, which only handles source,
special nuclear or byproduct material and does not handle solid waste,
hazardous waste, or mixed waste, is not subject to RCRA or to the Idaho
authorized hazardous waste program.
    The second commenter, on behalf of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes,
questioned whether Idaho, in implementing its authorized hazardous
waste program, was appropriately regulating phosphate (mineral
processing) plants within the state. In response to this commenter's
concerns, EPA reviewed its own work in regulating mineral processing
facilities and revisited Idaho's implementation of the authorized
program under the State Review Framework. The State Review Framework is
designed to ensure that EPA conducts oversight of state and EPA direct
implementation of compliance and enforcement programs to ensure
programs are carried out in a nationally consistent manner.
    Regulation of mineral processing wastes is an area in which
national consistency has been challenging for EPA given the complexity
of the processes and wastes in this sector. EPA began to place emphasis
on the sector in the fall of 2000. In November 2000, EPA issued an
enforcement alert to the regulated community giving notice that some
mineral processing facilities might be failing to properly identify and
manage hazardous waste regulated under RCRA. In 2003, EPA proposed the
sector as an enforcement priority for fiscal years (FYs) 2005 through
2007, (December 10, 2003, 68 FR 68893).
    EPA collaborated extensively with states in the development of a
strategic plan establishing mineral processing as a strategic
initiative and finalized the

national strategy to include mineral processing. Mineral processing was
proposed as an enforcement and compliance priority on February 9, 2007,
at 72 FR 6239, for FYs 2008 through 2010 (finalized as a priority on
October 12, 2007, 72 FR 58084) and on January 4, 2010 (75 FR 146). On
February 22, 2010, EPA finalized the proposal as a National Enforcement
Initiative--Reducing Pollution from Mineral Processing Operations--for
FYs 2011 through 2013.
    From 2004 to 2007, as EPA explained in an enforcement update
(October 2007, FY08-FY10 Compliance and Enforcement National Priority:
Mineral Processing and Mining), EPA completed numerous inspections of
phosphoric acid and mineral processing facilities. Additional
inspections took place from 2007 to 2010. EPA's enforcement work is
ongoing and states, including Idaho, have actively supported the
national initiative and EPA's work in moving the initiative forward.
    With respect to Idaho's authorized hazardous waste program, EPA's
findings in the 2010 State Review Framework Final Report (SRF) show the
state to have an active and responsive program. Data reviewed by EPA at
the time of the SRF showed over 200 regulatory inspections conducted
under the authorized program and penalties assessed totaling $172,600.
EPA found that Idaho continued to place a high priority on compliance
monitoring and enforcement at permitted treatment, storage and disposal
facilities.
    As to the phosphate plants in Idaho about which the commenter
expressed concerns, the State has conducted inspections on a near
annual basis since the year 2000. On several occasions those
inspections led to enforcement actions. The State has also been
involved in EPA lead inspections at these facilities and has conducted
compliance assistance visits as part of the state's effort to support
the EPA national initiative. The implementation of the state's
authorized program and the support of the EPA national initiative for
mineral processing facilities indicate that Idaho has been compliant
with the parameters of the authorized program for mineral processing
facilities and has complied with the memorandum of agreement (MOA)
between EPA and the state for the authorized program.
    EPA appreciates the concerns expressed by the commenter on behalf
of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes concerning Idaho's implementation of its
authorized program in regulating phosphate mining and process plants in
the state. While EPA does not agree with the conclusions drawn by the
commenter, EPA takes the concerns raised seriously and construes those
concerns as appropriate for addressing under the EPA national
initiative for this sector. EPA does not think an assessment of Idaho's
authorized program by the EPA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is
necessary at this time given the ongoing national initiative. EPA has
an obligation to continue to evaluate the state authorized program for
compliance with the regulations authorizing the state's program and
will continue to carry out that obligation.

C. What decisions has EPA made in this final rule concerning
authorization?

    EPA has made a final determination that Idaho's revisions to its
authorized hazardous waste management program meet all of the statutory
and regulatory requirements established by RCRA for authorization.
Therefore, EPA is authorizing the revised State of Idaho hazardous
waste management program for all delegable Federal hazardous waste
regulations codified by Idaho as of July 1, 2010, as described in the
Attorney General's Statement in the October 2011 revision authorization
application, and as discussed in section E of this rule. Idaho's
authorized program will be responsible for carrying out the aspects of
the RCRA program described in its revised program application subject
to the limitations of RCRA, including the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions
imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority
of HSWA, and which are not less stringent than existing requirements,
take effect in authorized States before the States are authorized for
the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and
prohibitions in Idaho, including issuing permits, until the State is
granted authorization to do so.

D. What will be the effect of this action?

    The effect of this action is that a facility in Idaho subject to
RCRA will have to comply with the authorized State program requirements
in lieu of the corresponding Federal requirements in order to comply
with RCRA. Additionally, such persons will have to comply with any
applicable Federal requirements, such as, for example, HSWA regulations
issued by EPA for which the State has not received authorization, and
RCRA requirements that are not supplanted by authorized State-issued
requirements. Idaho continues to have enforcement responsibilities
under its State hazardous waste management program for violations of
this program, but EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007,
3008, 3013, and 7003, 42 U.S.C. 6927, 6928, 6934 and 6973, and any
other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions, which includes,
among others, the authority to:
     Conduct inspections; require monitoring, tests, analyses,
or reports;
     Enforce RCRA requirements; suspend, terminate, modify or
revoke permits; and
     Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State
has taken its own actions.

This final action approving these revisions will not impose additional
requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for
which Idaho will be authorized are already effective under State law
and are not changed by the act of authorization.

E. What rules are we authorizing with this action?

    On October 25, 2011, Idaho submitted a program revision application
requesting authorization for all delegable Federal hazardous waste
regulations codified as of July 1, 2010, and these are the rules EPA
authorizes through this final action. Idaho incorporated the delegable
federal regulations by reference in the following provisions of the
Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA): <IP_ADDRESS> through
<IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS> with the exception of the 4th sentence;
<IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS> through <IP_ADDRESS>;
<IP_ADDRESS>6.01; and <IP_ADDRESS>8. This authorization revision includes
the following federal rules for which Idaho is being authorized for the
first time: Exclusion of Oil-Bearing Secondary Materials Processed in a
Gasification System to Produce Synthesis Gas (73 FR 57, January 2,
2008); NESHAP: Final Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors (Phase I
Final Replacement Standards and Phase II) Amendments (73 FR 18970,
April 8, 2008); F019 Exemption for Wastewater Treatment Sludges from
Auto Manufacturing Zinc Phosphating Processes (73 FR 31756, June 4,
2008); Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste (73 FR 64668, October
30, 2008); Academic Laboratories Generator Standards, Alternative
Standards for Hazardous Waste Determination and Accumulation (73 FR
72912, December 1, 2008); Expansion of RCRA Comparable Fuel Exclusion
(73 FR 77954, December 19, 2008); OECD Requirements; Hazardous Waste
Technical Corrections and

Clarifications (75 FR 12989, March 18, 2010); and Withdrawal of the
Emission Comparable Fuel Exclusion (75 FR 33712, June 15, 2010). The
federal regulation for the Export of Shipments of Spent Lead-Acid
Batteries (75 FR 1236, January 8, 2010), which the State adopted, is
not being authorized as part of this action. EPA does not authorize
states to administer the Federal government's export functions in any
section of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations. See additional details
about the Federal government's import and export functions in this
final rule in section F labeled ``Where Are the Revised State Rules
Different From the Federal Rules?''

F. Where are the revised State rules different from the Federal rules?

    Under RCRA 3009, EPA may not authorize State rules that are less
stringent than the Federal program. Any State rules that are less
stringent do not supplant the Federal regulations. State rules that are
broader in scope than the Federal program requirements are not
authorized. State rules that are equivalent to, and State rules that
are more stringent than, the Federal program may be authorized, in
which case they are enforceable by EPA. This section discusses certain
rules where EPA has made the finding that the State program is more
stringent and will be authorized and discusses certain portions of the
Federal program that are not delegable to the State because of the
Federal government's special role in foreign policy matters.
    EPA does not authorize States to administer Federal import and
export functions in any section of the RCRA hazardous waste
regulations. Even though States do not receive authorization to
administer the Federal government's import and export functions, found
in 40 CFR part 262, subparts E, F and H, State programs are still
required to adopt the Federal import and export provisions to maintain
their equivalency with the Federal program. The State amended its
import and export rules to include the Federal rule on Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Requirements; Export
Shipments of Spend Lead-Acid Batteries (75 FR 1236, January 8, 2010).
The State's rule is found at IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>. EPA will continue to
implement those requirements directly through the RCRA regulations.
    EPA has found that the State's Emergency Notification Requirements,
(IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.02), are more stringent than the Federal program.
This is because the State's regulations require that the State
Communications Center be contacted along with the Federal Center. EPA
has found that the State's statutory requirement requiring hazardous
waste generators and commercial hazardous waste disposal facilities to
file annual hazardous waste generation reports, Idaho Code section 39-
4411(4) and 39-4411(5), to be more stringent than the Federal program.
EPA will authorize and enforce these more stringent provisions.

G. Who handles permits after the authorization takes effect?

    Idaho will continue to issue permits for all the provisions for
which it is authorized and administer the permits it issues. If EPA
issued permits prior to authorizing Idaho for these revisions, these
permits would continue in force until the effective date of the State's
issuance or denial of a State hazardous waste permit, at which time EPA
would modify the existing EPA permit to expire at an earlier date,
terminate the existing EPA permit for cause, or allow the existing EPA
permit to otherwise expire by its terms, except for those facilities
located in Indian Country. EPA will not issue new permits or new
portions of permits for provisions for which Idaho is authorized after
the effective date of this authorization. EPA will continue to
implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Idaho is
not yet authorized.

H. What is codification and is EPA codifying Idaho's hazardous waste
program as authorized in this final rule?

    Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and
regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste
management program into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). This is
done by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. EPA
is reserving the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart N for
codification of Idaho's program at a later date.

I. How does this action affect Indian country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in
Idaho?

    Idaho is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in
Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Indian country includes:
    1. All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations
within or abutting the State of Idaho;
    2. Any land held in trust by the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and
    3. Any other land, whether on or off an Indian reservation, that
qualifies as Indian country.
    Therefore, this action has no effect on Indian country. EPA retains
jurisdiction over ``Indian Country'' as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 and
will continue to implement and administer the RCRA program on these
lands.

J. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule revises the State of Idaho's authorized hazardous
waste management program pursuant to section 3006 of RCRA and imposes
no requirements other than those currently imposed by State law. This
final rule complies with applicable executive orders and statutory
provisions as follows:

1. Executive Order 12866 and 13563

    This action authorizes revisions to the federally approved
hazardous waste program in Idaho. This type of action is exempt from
review under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

2. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This final rule does not
establish or modify any information or recordkeeping requirements for
the regulated community.

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq., generally requires Federal agencies to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of
this final rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A
small business, as codified in the Small Business Size Regulations at
13 CFR part 121; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district
with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization
that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its field. EPA has

determined that this action will not have a significant impact on small
entities because the final rule will only have the effect of
authorizing pre-existing requirements under State law and imposes no
additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. After
considering the economic impacts of this action, I certify that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. This action imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local
or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
the UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small government entities.

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This final rule authorizes pre-
existing State rules. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to
this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent
with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and
local governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed
action from State and local officials but did not receive any comments
from State or local officials.

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive order 13175, because EPA retains its authority over Indian
Country and does not authorize the state to implement its authorized
program in Indian Country within the state's boundaries. Thus, EPA has
determined that Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final
rule. EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed rule from
tribal officials and received one comment on behalf of the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes. That comment is discussed in section B of this
preamble.

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to EO 13045 because it approves a State program
and is authorizing pre-existing State rules.

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001), because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866.

9. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through the OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to
use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This action
does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider
the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this action will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This action authorizes pre-existing State rules which are
equivalent to, and no less stringent than existing federal
requirements.

11. Congressional Review Act

    Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective July 11, 2012.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Indians--lands, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority

    This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006
and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

    Dated: May 31, 2012.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2012-14132 Filed 6-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 9, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32467-32468]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14103]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0228]

Safety Zones; Fireworks Events in Captain of the Port New York
Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce various safety zones within the
Captain of the Port New York Zone on the specified dates and times.
This action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators
from hazards associated with fireworks displays. During the enforcement
period, no person or vessel may enter the safety zones without
permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP).

DATES: The regulation for the safety zones described in 33 CFR 165.160
will be enforced on the dates and times listed under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
document, call or email Lieutenant Douglas Neumann, Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety
zones listed in 33 CFR 165.160 on the specified dates and times as
indicated in Table 1.

                                 Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The Boston Consulting        Launch site: A barge located in
 Group, Liberty Island Safety   approximate position 40[deg]41'16.5'' N.
 Zone, 33 CFR 165.160(2.1).     074[deg]02'23'' W. (NAD 1983), located
                                in Federal Anchorage 20-C, about 360
                                yards east of Liberty Island. This
                                Safety Zone is a 360-yard radius from
                                the barge.
                                Date: June 12, 2015.
                                Time: 8:30 p.m.-9:45 p.m.
2. Heritage of Pride, Pier 40   Launch site: A barge located in
 Safety Zone, 33 CFR            approximate position 40[deg]43'30'' N.
 165.160(5.14).                 074[deg]01'06.7'' W. (NAD 1983), in the
                                vicinity of the Holland Tunnel
                                Ventilator, 530 yards south of Pier 40,
                                Manhattan, New York. This Safety Zone is
                                a 240-yard radius from the barge.
                                Date: June 28, 2015.
                                Time: 09:15 p.m.-10:30 p.m.
3. Briggs Inc., Ellis Island    Launch site: A barge located
 Safety Zone, 33 CFR            between Federal Anchorages 20-A and 20-
 165.160(2.2).                  B, in approximate position
                                40[deg]41'45'' N. 074[deg]02'09'' W.
                                (NAD 1983) about 365 yards east of Ellis
                                Island. This Safety Zone is a 360-yard
                                radius from the barge.
                                Date: June 06, 2015.
                                Time: 10:00 p.m.-11:20 p.m.

4. Havas Worldwide LLC, Pier    Launch site: A barge located in
 60 Safety Zone, 33 CFR         approximate position 40[deg]44'49'' N.
 165.160(5.1).                  074[deg]01'02'' W. (NAD 1983),
                                approximately 500 yards west of Pier 60,
                                Manhattan, New York. This Safety Zone is
                                a 360-yard radius from the barge.
                                Date: June 25, 2015.
                                Rain Date: June 26, 2015.
                                Time: 10:45 p.m.-12:15 a.m.
5. Ellis Island Medals of       Launch site: A barge located in
 Honor, Liberty Island Safety   approximate position 40[deg]41'16.5'' N.
 Zone, 33 CFR 165.160(2.1).     074[deg]02'23'' W. (NAD 1983), located
                                in Federal Anchorage 20-C, about 360
                                yards east of Liberty Island. This
                                Safety Zone is a 360-yard radius from
                                the barge.
                                Date: May 09, 2015.
                                Time: 11:00 p.m.-12:10 a.m.
6. Big Shoulders, Liberty       Launch site: A barge located in
 Island Safety Zone, 33 CFR     approximate position 40[deg]41'16.5'' N.
 165.160(2.1).                  074[deg]02'23'' W. (NAD 1983), located
                                in Federal Anchorage 20-C, about 360
                                yards east of Liberty Island. This
                                Safety Zone is a 360-yard radius from
                                the barge.
                                Date: June 20, 2015.
                                Time: 11:30 p.m.-11:45 p.m.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.160, vessels may not enter the
safety zones unless given permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. Spectator vessels may transit outside the safety zones
but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of other
vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or
local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.160(a) and 5
U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notification in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard will provide mariners with advanced
notification of enforcement periods via the Local Notice to Mariners
and marine information broadcasts. If the COTP determines that a safety
zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this
document, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general
permission to enter the safety zone.

    Dated: April 17, 2015.
G. Loebl,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
[FR Doc. 2015-14103 Filed 6-8-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 48 (Monday, March 15, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14234-14237]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05307]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0817; Special Conditions No. 25-779-SC]

Special Conditions: Airbus Model A321neo ACF Airplane; Dynamic
Test Requirements for Single-Occupant Oblique (Side-Facing) Seats With
3-Point Restraints

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Airbus Model
A321neo Cabin Flex (ACF) airplane. This airplane will have a novel or
unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology
envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category
airplanes. This design feature is single-occupant oblique seats with 3-
point restraints. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not
contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Airbus on March 15, 2021. Send
comments on or before April 29, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2020-0817 using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as
described in the following paragraph, and other information as
described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information you provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing
each substantive verbal contact received about this proposal.
    Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both
customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from
public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this Notice contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this Notice, it is important that you clearly designate
the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission
containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and the indicated comments
will not be placed in the public docket of this Notice. Submissions
containing CBI should be sent to Shannon Lennon, Human-Machine
Interface Section, AIR-626, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments
the FAA receives, which are not specifically designated as CBI, will be
placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Lennon, Human-Machine
Interface Section, AIR-626, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The substance of these special conditions
previously has been published in the Federal Register for public
comment. These special conditions have been derived without substantive
change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public
comment would result in a significant change from the substance
contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public
notice and comment are unnecessary, and finds that, for the same
reason, good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon
publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-0817'' at the beginning
of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include supporting data.
    The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and
may amend these special conditions because of those comments.

Background

    On December 19, 2019, Airbus applied for a change to Type
Certificate No. A28NM for single-occupant oblique seats with 3-point
restraints in the Airbus Model A321neo ACF airplane. This airplane,
which is a derivative of the Airbus Model A321-200 airplane currently
approved under Type Certificate No. A28NM, is a twin-engine, transport-
category airplane with seating for 244 passengers and a maximum takeoff
weight of 213,848 pounds.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Airbus must show that the Model A321neo ACF airplane, as
changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations
listed in Type Certificate No. A28NM or the applicable regulations in
effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier
amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (e.g., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Airbus Model A321neo ACF airplane
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Airbus Model A321neo ACF airplane must comply with the
fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the
noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Airbus Model A321neo ACF airplane will incorporate the
following novel or unusual design features:
    Single-occupant oblique seats with 3-point restraints.

Discussion

    The FAA has been conducting and sponsoring research on appropriate
injury criteria for oblique seat installations. However, the FAA
research program is not complete, and the FAA may update these criteria
as further research results are obtained. To reflect current research
findings, the FAA issued policy statement PS-ANM-25-03-R1, ``Technical
Criteria for Approving Side-Facing Seats,'' November 5, 2012, which
updates injury criteria for fully side-facing seats; and policy
statement PS-AIR-25-27, ``Technical Criteria for Approving Oblique
Seats,'' July 11, 2018, to define injury criteria for oblique seats.
These policies provide background and technical information, as well as
applicable injury criteria.
    The installation of obliquely oriented passenger seats is novel
such that the current certification basis does not adequately address
protection of the occupant's neck and spine for seat configurations
that are oriented at an angle greater than 18 degrees from the airplane
longitudinal centerline.
    The installation of passenger seats at angles of 18 to 45 degrees
to the airplane centerline is unusual in transport-

category airplanes due to the seat and occupant interface with the
surrounding furniture that introduces occupant alignment and loading
concerns with or without the installation of a 3-point restraint system
or additional airbag restraint system. Note that, while the applicant
did not specifically cite airbag systems as part of the seat restraint
system, this discussion and related special conditions address airbag
information in the event that an airbag system is installed as part of
the seat restraint system.
    FAA-sponsored research has found that an unrestrained flailing of
the upper torso, even when the pelvis and torso are nearly aligned, can
produce serious spinal and torso injuries. At lower-impact severities,
including with significant misalignment between the torso and pelvis,
the injuries did not occur. Tests with an FAA Hybrid III
anthropomorphic test device (ATD) have identified a level of lumbar
spinal tension corresponding to the no-injury impact severity. This
level of tension is included as a limit in the special conditions. The
spine-tension limit selected is conservative with respect to other
aviation injury criteria because it corresponds to a no-injury loading
condition.
    Shoulder harnesses (3-point restraint systems) have been widely
used on flight-attendant seats, flight-deck seats, business jets, and
general aviation airplanes to reduce occupant head injury in the
unlikely event of an emergency landing. The use of 3-point restraint
systems on transport-category airplane passenger seats is rare;
however, pertinent regulations and published guidance for this type of
restraint system exist.
    The existing regulations, however, do not adequately address the
proposed business-class seating configuration of oblique seats with 3-
point restraints because they do not consider unique occupant alignment
and loading concerns due to obliquely oriented passengers. Therefore,
special conditions are required.
    These special conditions provide head injury criteria, neck injury
criteria, spine injury criteria, and body-to-wall contact criteria.
These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that
the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Airbus Model A321neo ACF airplane. Should Airbus apply at a later date
for a change to the type certificate to include another model
incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special
conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature
on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Airbus Model A321neo ACF airplane.
    In addition to the requirements of Sec.  25.562, passenger seats
installed at an angle between 18 degrees and 45 degrees from the
aircraft bow-to-stern centerline must meet the following:
    1. Head Injury Criteria (HIC):
    Compliance with Sec.  25.562(c)(5) is required, except that, when
an airbag device is present in addition to the 3-point restraint
system, and the anthropomorphic test device (ATD) has no apparent
contact with the seat or structure but has contact with an airbag, the
HIC unlimited scored in excess of 1000 is acceptable, provided the
HIC15 score (calculated in accordance with 49 CFR 571.208) for that
contact is less than 700.
    ATD head contact with the seat or other structure, through the
airbag, or contact subsequent to contact with the airbag, requires a
HIC value that does not exceed 1000.
    2. Body-to-Wall/Furnishing Contact:
    If a seat is installed aft of structure (e.g., interior wall or
furnishings) that does not provide a homogenous contact surface for the
expected range of occupants and yaw angles, then additional analysis
and tests may be required to demonstrate that the injury criteria are
met for the area that an occupant could contact. For example, if an
airbag device is present, and different yaw angles could result in
different airbag-device performance, then additional analysis or
separate test(s) may be necessary to evaluate performance.
    3. Neck Injury Criteria:
    a. The seating system must protect the occupant from experiencing
serious neck injury. If an airbag device is present, the assessment of
neck injury must be conducted with the airbag device activated, unless
there is reason to also consider that the neck injury potential would
be higher for impacts below the airbag-device deployment threshold.
    b. The Nij (calculated in accordance with 49 CFR 571.208) must be
below 1.0, where Nij = Fz/Fzc +
My/Myc, and Nij critical values are:
    i. Fzc = 1530 lbs. for tension
    ii. Fzc = 1385 lbs. for compression
    iii. Myc = 229 lb-ft in flexion
    iv. Myc = 100 lb-ft in extension
    c. In addition, peak Fz must be below 937 lb. in tension
and 899 lb. in compression.
    d. Rotation of the head about its vertical axis relative to the
torso is limited to 105 degrees in either direction from forward-
facing.
    e. The neck must not impact any surface that would produce
concentrated loading on the neck.
    4. Spine and Torso Injury Criteria:
    a. The lumbar spine tension (Fz) cannot exceed 1200 lb.
    b. Significant concentrated loading on the occupant's spine, in the
area between the pelvis and shoulders during impact, including rebound,
is not acceptable. During this type of contact, the interval for any
rearward (X direction) acceleration exceeding 20g must be less than
three (3) milliseconds as measured by the thoracic instrumentation
specified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart E, filtered in accordance with
SAE recommended practice J211/1, ``Instrumentation for Impact Test-Part
1-Electronic Instrumentation.''
    c. The occupant must not interact with the armrest or other seat
components in any manner significantly different than would be expected
for a forward-facing seat installation.
    5. Pelvis Criteria:
    Any part of the load-bearing portion of the bottom of the ATD
pelvis must not translate beyond the edges of the seat bottom seat-
cushion supporting structure.
    6. Femur Criteria:
    Axial rotation of the upper leg (about the z-axis of the femur per
SAE Recommended Practice J211/1) must be limited to 35 degrees from the
nominal seated position. Evaluation during rebound does not need to be
considered.
    7. ATD and Test Conditions:
    Longitudinal tests conducted to measure the injury criteria above
must be performed with the FAA Hybrid III ATD, as described in SAE
1999-01-

1609. The tests must be conducted with an undeformed floor, at the
most-critical yaw cases for injury, and with all lateral structural
supports (e.g., armrests or walls) installed.
    Note: Airbus must demonstrate that the installation of seats via
plinths or pallets meet all applicable requirements. Compliance with
the guidance contained in policy memorandum PS-ANM-100-2000-00123,
``Guidance for Demonstrating Compliance with Seat Dynamic Testing for
Plinths and Pallets,'' dated February 2, 2000, is acceptable to the
FAA.
    8. Inflatable Airbag Restraint Systems Special Conditions:
    If inflatable airbag-restraint systems are also installed, the
airbag systems must meet the requirements in the airbag (inflatable
restraint) special conditions applicable to the Airbus Model A321
series airplanes.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on January 11, 2021.
Suzanne Masterson,
Manager, Transport Airplane Strategic Policy Section, Policy and
Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-05307 Filed 3-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 139)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 41255]
[DOCID:fr18jy08-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0024; Airspace Docket No. 08-AGL-4]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Black River Falls, WI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; removal.

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

SUMMARY: A direct final rule, published in the Federal Register April
2, 2008 (73 FR 17888) docket No. FAA-2008-0024, adding additional Class
E airspace at Black River Falls, WI is being removed. Although the rule
became effective June 5, 2008, charting of this airspace was never
completed. A new rulemaking will be forthcoming with an effective date
that coincides with the new charting date.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC July 18, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Mallett, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0530; telephone
number<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On April 2, 2008, the FAA published a direct final rule; request
for comments, in the Federal Register (73 FR 17888) Docket No. FAA-
2008-0024, amending the existing Class E airspace at Black River Falls
Area Airport, Black River Falls, WI. No comments were received
therefore the rule became effective on the date specified, June 5,
2008. It was then determined that the airspace had not been charted.
Therefore, the FAA is removing this action from the Federal Register
publication system and will issue a new rulemaking with a new effective
date to coincide with the charting date.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Removal of the Rule

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Airspace Docket
No. 08-AGL-4, as published in the Federal Register on April 2, 2008 (73
FR 17888), is hereby removed.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on July 1, 2008.
Donald R. Smith,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. E8-15960 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register: May 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 100)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29878-29880]
[DOCID:fr24my06-27]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0441; FRL-8174-4]
RIN 2060-AI66

National Emission Standards for the Printing and Publishing
Industry

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On May 30, 1996, EPA issued national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the printing and publishing
industry under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). We are proposing
to amend the final rule to resolve issues and questions raised after
promulgation of the final rule and to correct errors in the regulatory
text. This action also proposes to amend the Paper and Other

Web Coating NESHAP and the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabric and
Other Textiles NESHAP to clarify the interaction between these rules
and the Printing and Publishing Industry NESHAP. These proposed
amendments appear in the Rules and Regulations Section of this Federal
Register as a direct final rule.

DATES: Comments. Written comments must be received on or before June
23, 2006 unless a public hearing is requested by June 5, 2006. If a
public hearing is requested, written comments must be received on or
before July 10, 2006.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing, a public hearing will be held on June 8, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0441, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> and<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: Air and
Radiation Docket (6102T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20460. Please include a total of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments
to: Air and Radiation Docket (6102T), EPA West Building, Room B-102,
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please
include a total of two copies.
    We request that you also send a separate copy of each comment to
the contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0441. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov
 or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified

as CBI only to the following address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS
Document Control Officer, EPA (C404-02), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2004-0441, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Clearly mark the
part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI.
    The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov
, your e-mail address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
the Air and Radiation Docket homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation

Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0441, EPA West Building, Room B-
102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket
Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10
a.m. at the EPA's Environmental Research Center Auditorium, Research
Triangle Park, NC, or at an alternate site nearby.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Salman, EPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Coatings and Chemicals Group (D205-01), Research Triangle Park, NC
27711; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               NAICS *
                  Category                       Code           Examples of potentially regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................................     322212  Folding Paperboard Box Manufacturing.
                                                 322221  Coated and Laminated Packaging Paper and Plastics Film
                                                          Manufacturing.
                                                 322222  Coated and Laminated Paper Manufacturing.
                                                 322223  Plastics, Foil, and Coated Paper Bag Manufacturing.
                                                 322224  Uncoated Paper and Multiwall Bag Manufacturing.
                                                 322225  Laminated Aluminum Foil Manufacturing for Flexible
                                                          Packaging.
                                                 323111  Commercial Gravure Printing.
                                                 323112  Commercial Flexographic Printing.
                                                 323119  Other Commercial Printing.
                                                 326192  Resilient Floor Covering Manufacturing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria of the rule. If you have
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a

particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information which you claim to be CBI
to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 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.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 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.
    Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Mr.
David Salman, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector
Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group (D205-01),
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at least 2 days in advance of the
potential date of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending
the public hearing must also call Mr. Salman to verify the time, date,
and location of the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested
parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning
these proposed emission standards.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's proposal will also be available through
the http://WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this action

will be posted on EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/.
 The TTN at EPA's Web site provides information

and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
    Direct Final Rule. A direct final rule identical to this proposal
is published in the Rules and Regulations section of today's Federal
Register. For further supplementary information, the detailed rationale
for the proposal and the regulatory revisions, see the direct final
rule.
    We are taking direct final action because we view the amendments as
noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse comments. We have explained
our reasons for the amendments in the preamble to the direct final
rule. If we receive no adverse comments, we will take no further action
on the proposed rule. If we receive adverse comments, we will withdraw
only the amendments, sections or paragraphs of the direct final rule on
which we received adverse comments. We will publish a timely withdrawal
in the Federal Register indicating which will become effective and
which are being withdrawn. If part or all of the direct final rule in
the Rules and Regulations section of today's Federal Register is
withdrawn, all comments pertaining to those provisions will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We
will not institute a second comment period on today's proposed rule.
Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    For a complete discussion of all of the administrative requirements
applicable to this action, see the direct final rule in the Rules and
Regulations section of today's Federal Register.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impact of today's proposed rule
amendments on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business ranging from 500 to 1,000 employees as defined by the Small
Business Administration's size standards; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government or a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule
amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    We conducted an assessment of the impact of the May 30, 1996 final
rule on small businesses within the industries affected by that rule.
This analysis allowed us to conclude that there would not be a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
from the implementation of that rule. There is nothing contained in the
proposed rule amendments that will impose an economic impact on small
businesses in any way not considered in the analysis of the May 30,
1996 final rule; this means that the proposed rule amendments have no
incremental economic impact on small businesses beyond what was already
examined in the final rule. We continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of the proposed rule amendments on small entities and
welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 18, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 06-4822 Filed 5-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P