[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 8, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50232-50234]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19244]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0539; Project Identifier 2018-SW-048-AD; Amendment
39-21719; AD 2021-19-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Textron Canada Limited Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bell Textron Canada Limited Model 206, 206A, 206A-1 (OH-58A),
206B, 206B-1, 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, 206L-4, 222, 222B, 222U, 230, 407,
427, 429, and 430 helicopters. This AD was prompted by a report of a
shoulder harness seat belt comfort clip (comfort clip) interfering with
the seat belt inertia reel. This AD requires removing each comfort clip
from service, inspecting the shoulder harness seat belt for any rip and
abrasion, and removing any shoulder harness seat belt from service that
has a rip or abrasion. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 13, 2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Bell Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel,
Quebec J7J1R4; telephone 1-450-437-2862 or 1-800-363-8023; fax 1-450-
433-0272; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at https://
www.bellflight.com/support/

contact-support. You may view the referenced service information at the
FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood
Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0539; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
Transport Canada AD, any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Warwick, Aerospace Engineer,
Certification Section, Fort Worth ACO Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood
Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Bell Textron Canada
Limited Model 206, 206A, 206A-1 (OH-58A), 206B, 206B-1, 206L, 206L-1,
206L-3, 206L-4, 222, 222B, 222U, 230, 407, 427, 429, and 430
helicopters with a comfort clip installed; or that have been modified
per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SH2073SO (installation of
shoulder harness restraint system) or STC SH2751SO (installation of a
passenger shoulder harness restraint system).
    The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2021 (86 FR
35410). In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require, within 25 hours time-
in-service (TIS) after the effective date of the proposed AD, removing
from service each comfort clip and inspecting each shoulder harness
seat belt for a rip and abrasion. If there is a rip or abrasion, the
NPRM proposed to require removing the shoulder harness seat belt from
service before further flight. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit
installing a comfort clip on any helicopter as of the effective date of
the proposed AD.
    The NPRM was prompted by Transport Canada AD CF-2018-16, dated June
14, 2018 (Transport Canada AD CF-2018-16), issued by Transport Canada,
which is the aviation authority for Canada, to correct an unsafe
condition for all serial-numbered Bell Helicopter Textron Canada
Limited (now Bell Textron Canada Limited) Model 206, 206A, 206A-1,
206B, 206B-1, 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, 206L-4, 222, 222B, 222U, 230, 407,
427, 429 and 430 helicopters. Transport Canada advises that Bell
Helicopter Textron Canada Limited delivered comfort clips with some
helicopters, and that these comfort clips, which were also sold as
spare parts or accessories, were intended to improve occupant comfort
by reducing shoulder harness tension. However, Transport Canada advises
the comfort clip may interfere with the shoulder harness inertia reel,
preventing the harness from locking and resulting in injury to the
occupant during an emergency landing. To prevent this unsafe condition,
Transport Canada AD CF-2018-16 requires, within 25 hours air time or 10
days, whichever occurs first, determining if the comfort clips are
installed. If the comfort clips are installed, Transport Canada AD CF-
2018-16 requires removing them from service within 100 hours air time
or 30 days, whichever occurs first, and inspecting each shoulder
harness seat belt for damage and replacing any shoulder harness seat
belt that has damage that exceeds allowable limits before further
flight. Transport Canada AD CF-2018-16 also prohibits the installation
of any comfort clip on any helicopter.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with Canada, Transport Canada, its
technical representative, has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition
described in its AD. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined
that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the
FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
helicopters.

Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed the following Bell Helicopter Alert Service
Bulletins (ASBs), each dated January 11, 2016:
     ASB 222-15-112 for Model 222, 222B, and 222U helicopters
with serial numbers (S/N) 47006 through 47089, 47131 through 47156, and
47501 through 47574 (ASB 222-15-112);
     ASB 230-15-46 for Model 230 helicopters with S/N 23001
through 23038;
     ASB 407-15-111 for Model 407 helicopters with S/N 53000
through 53900, 53911 through 54166, and 54300 through 54599;
     ASB 427-15-39 for Model 427 helicopters with S/N 56001
through 56084, 58001 and 58002 (ASB 427-15-39);
     ASB 429-15-27 for Model 429 helicopters with S/N 57001
through 57259 (ASB 429-15-27); and
     ASB 430-15-56 for Model 430 helicopters with S/N 49001
through 49129.
    The FAA also reviewed the following Bell Helicopter ASBs, both
Revision A and both dated February 5, 2016:
     ASB 206-15-133 for Model 206A/B and TH-67 helicopters with
S/N 4 through 4690 and 5101 through 5313 (ASB 206-15-133); and
     ASB 206L-15-175 for Model 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, and 206L-4
helicopters with S/N 45001 through 45153, 46601 through 46617, 45154
through 45790, 51001 through 51612, and 52001 through 52455 (ASB 206L-
15-175).
    All of the ASBs specify removing all variants of comforts clips
from all seat belt assemblies. ASB 222-15-112, ASB 427-15-39, and ASB
429-15-27 also specify that although the helicopter models to which
these ASBs apply were not affected by the original design at the time
of certification and delivery of the helicopter, the affected parts may
have been installed post-delivery to end owners/operators of those
helicopters.
    ASB 206-15-133 and ASB 206L-15-175 also specify that helicopters
that have been modified per STC SH2073SO (installation of shoulder
harness restraint system) are affected and therefore included in the
ASB applicability.
    ASB 206L-15-175 also specifies that helicopters that have been
modified per STC SH2751SO (installation of a passenger shoulder harness
restraint system) are affected and therefore included in the ASB
applicability.

Differences Between This AD and the Transport Canada AD

    This AD requires removing the comfort clip and inspecting the
shoulder harness seat belt within 25 hours TIS; Transport Canada AD CF-
2018-16 requires inspecting for the presence of a comfort clip at 25
hours air time, or 10 days, whichever occurs first, and then requires
removing the comfort clip, if installed. Transport

Canada AD CF-2018-16 requires inspecting the shoulder harness seat belt
for any damage that exceeds allowable limits within 100 hours air time
or 30 days, whichever occurs first, whereas this AD requires the
inspection within 25 hours TIS and removing any shoulder harness seat
belt from service before further flight if there is any rip or
abrasion.
    Transport Canada AD CF-2018-16 applies to all serial-numbered Model
206, 206A, 206A-1, 206B, 206B-1, 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, 206L-4, 222,
222B, 222U, 230, 407, 427, 429 and 430 helicopters, whereas this AD
applies to Model 206, 206A, 206A-1, 206B, 206B-1, 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3,
206L-4, 222, 222B, 222U, 230, 407, 427, 429, and 430 helicopters with a
comfort clip installed or helicopters that have been modified per STC
SH2073SO (installation of shoulder harness restraint system) or STC
SH2751SO (installation of a passenger shoulder harness restraint
system).

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 2,347 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on
these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this AD.
    Removing each comfort clip will take about 0.5 work-hour for an
estimated cost of $43 per clip and up to $807,368 for the U.S. fleet.
    Replacing a shoulder harness seat belt, if required, will take
about 1 work-hour and parts will cost about $250 per shoulder harness
seat belt, for an estimated cost of $335 per replacement.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2021-19-01 Bell Textron Canada Limited: Amendment 39-21719; Docket
No. FAA-2021-0539; Project Identifier 2018-SW-048-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective October 13, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bell Textron Canada Limited Model 206, 206A,
206A-1 (OH-58A), 206B, 206B-1, 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, 206L-4, 222,
222B, 222U, 230, 407, 427, 429, and 430 helicopters, certificated in
any category:
    (1) With a shoulder harness seat belt comfort clip (comfort
clip) installed; or
    (2) That have been modified per Supplemental Type Certificate
(STC) SH2073SO (installation of shoulder harness restraint system)
or STC SH2751SO (installation of a passenger shoulder harness
restraint system).

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2500 Cabin
Equipment/Furnishings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a comfort clip
interfering with the seat belt inertia reel, which could prevent the
seatbelt from locking and result in injury to the occupant during an
emergency landing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Within 25 hours time-in-service after the effective date of
this AD:
    (i) Remove each comfort clip from service.
    (ii) Inspect each shoulder harness seat belt for a rip and
abrasion. If there is a rip or any abrasion, before further flight,
remove the shoulder harness seat belt from service.
    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install any
comfort clip on any helicopter.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation 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 International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (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

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Steven Warwick,
Aerospace Engineer, Certification Section, Fort Worth ACO Branch,
FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817)
222-5225; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada AD
CF-2018-16, dated June 14, 2018. You may view the Transport Canada
AD on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in the AD Docket
in Docket No. FAA-2021-0539.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on August 31, 2021.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-19244 Filed 9-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 172)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51597-51599]
[DOCID:fr04se08-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0843]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone: Wantagh Parkway 2 Bridge over the Goose Creek
Channel, Town of Hempstead, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of Goose Creek Channel surrounding the Wantagh Parkway
2 Bridge located in the Town of Hempstead, New York. This safety zone
is necessary to protect vessels transiting in the area from hazards
imposed by construction barges and equipment. Entry into this zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Long Island
Sound, New Haven, CT.

DATES: This rule will be effective from 12:01 a.m. on September 2, 2008
until 11:59 p.m on December 31, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0843 and are available online
at www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection or
copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, USCG Sector Long
Island Sound, 120 Woodward Ave., New Haven, CT 06512 between 9 a.m. and
3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call LT Douglas Miller, USCG Sector Long Island Sound,
Chief Waterways Management at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because unforeseen delays in the construction
and removal of the Wantagh 3 Bridge forced the original construction
dates for the Wantagh 2 Bridge to be modified which in turn makes the
publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking and associated comment
period impractical; additional repair and replacement work are needed
to ensure the continued safe operation of the bridge.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. A delay is not in the public
interest as this safety zone is necessary to allow for completion of
this bridge construction project.

Background and Purpose

    Currently, the New York Department of Transportation is modifying
the existing bascule and flanking spans of the Wantagh 2 Bridge located
over the Goose Creek Channel in the Town of Hempstead, NY. These
modifications are needed to ensure the continued safe operation of the
bridge. To complete the modifications on the bridge, barges will need
to block the waterway during the course of the project. To ensure the
continued safety of the boating community, the Coast Guard is
establishing a safety zone in all waters of Goose Creek Channel within
100-yards of the Wantagh Parkway Number 2 Bridge. This safety zone is
necessary to protect the safety of the boating community who wish to
utilize the Goose Creek channel. Vessels may utilize the Sloop Channel
as an alternative route to using the Goose Creek Channel, adding
minimal additional transit time. Marine traffic may also transit safely
outside of the safety zone during the effective dates of the safety
zone, allowing navigation in the Goose Creek Channel, except the
portion delineated by this rule.

Discussion of Rule

    This regulation establishes a temporary safety zone on the Goose
Creek Channel within 100-yards to either side of the Wantagh 2 Bridge.
This action is intended to prohibit vessel traffic in a portion of the
Goose Creek Channel within 100 yards of the Wantagh 2 Bridge in the
Town of Hempstead, NY and to provide for the safety of the boating
community due to the hazards posed by construction equipment located in
the waterway during the modification of the existing span.
    The effective period of this safety zone will be from 12:01 a.m.
September 2, 2008 to 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2008. Marine traffic
may continue to transit safely outside of the safety zone during the
effective dates of the safety zone, allowing navigation in the Goose
Creek Channel, except the portion delineated by this rule. Entry into
this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Long Island Sound.
    Any violation of the safety zone described herein is punishable by,

among other things, civil and criminal penalties, in rem liability
against the offending vessel, and the initiation of suspension or
revocation proceedings against Coast Guard-issued merchant mariner
credentials.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    This regulation may have some impact on the public, but the
potential impact will be minimized for the following reasons: Vessels
may transit in all areas of the Goose Creek Channel other than the area
of the safety zone, and may utilize other routes with minimal increased
transit time.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit in those portions of the Goose Creek that are covered by the
safety zone.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under subsection 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 [Pub. L. 104-121], the Coast Guard
wants to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they
can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the
rulemaking. If this rule would affect your small business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call LT
Douglas Miller, Chief Waterway Management, Sector Long Island Sound, at
(203) 468-4596.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

 Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a
categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction.
Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental
documentation as it establishes a safety zone. A final environmental
analysis checklist and a final categorical exclusion determination will
be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T01-0843 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-0843  Safety Zone: Wantagh Parkway 2 Bridge over the
Goose Creek Channel, Town of Hempstead, New York.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the federal channel on the Goose Creek Channel in Town of
Hempstead, NY, from surface to bottom, within 100 yards to either side
of the Wantagh 2 Bridge.
    (b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
Designated on-scene patrol personnel, means any commissioned, warrant
and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard operating Coast Guard
vessels who has been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of
the Port, Long Island Sound.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR
165.23 apply.
    (2) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23 of
this part, entry into or movement within this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound.
    (3) All persons and vessels must comply with the Coast Guard
Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene patrol personnel.
    (4) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio,
flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel must proceed
as directed.
    (5) Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the zone on
VHF-16 or via phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (d) Effective Period. This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. on
September 2, 2008 to 11:59 p.m on December 31, 2008.

    Dated: August 15, 2008.
Daniel A. Ronan,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Long Island Sound.
 [FR Doc. E8-20480 Filed 9-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: October 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 189)]
[Notices]
[Page 50861-50862]
[DOCID:fr01oc09-131]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60716; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2009-70]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving
Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 10.12 (Minor Rule Plan)

September 24, 2009.

    On July 29, 2009, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change
amending NYSE Arca Rule 10.12 (Minor Rule Plan) (``MRP'') to
incorporate additional violations into the MRP, and to increase the
fine levels for certain MRP violations. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on August 24, 2009.\3\
The Commission received no comments regarding the proposal. This order
approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60518 (August 18,
2009), 74 FR 42725 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend its MRP to incorporate violations
for trading in restricted classes, and failure to report position and
account information. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to implement a
fine schedule for Options Trading Permit (``OTP'') Holders that affect
opening transactions in restricted series of options, inconsistent with
the terms of any such restriction, in violation of Rule 5.4(a). This
fine will consist of $1,000 for the first violation during a rolling
24-month period, $2,500 for a second violation within the same period,
and $5,000 for a third violation during the same period. The Exchange
also proposes to incorporate violations for failing to accurately
report position and account information to the Exchange on a Large
Option Position Report (``LOPR'') pursuant to Rule 6.6(a). This fine
will consist of $1,000 for the first violation in a rolling 24-month
period, $2,500 for a second violation within the same period, and
$5,000 for a third violation within the same period. The Exchange
believes that, in most cases, violations of trading in restricted
classes and violations of LOPR reporting may be handled efficiently
through the MRP. However, any egregious activity or activity that is
believed to be manipulative will continue to be subject to formal
disciplinary proceedings.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Notice, supra note 3, 74 FR at 42725-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to increase fines for violations of NYSE
Arca Rules 6.46(a),\5\ 6.47A,\6\ and 6.75 \7\ to $1,000 for the first
violation in a rolling 24-month period, $2,500 for a second violation
within the same period, and $5,000 for a third violation within the
same period. The MRP currently provides for fines of $1,000 for the
first violation of Rule 6.46(a) in a rolling 24-month period, $2,500
for a second violation within the same period, and $3,500 for a third
violation within the same period. The MRP currently provides for fines
of $500 for the first violation of Rule 6.47A in a rolling 24-month
period, $1,000 for a second violation within the same period, and
$2,500 for a third violation within the same period. The MRP currently
provides for a fine of $500 for the first violation of Rule 6.75 in a
rolling 24-month period, $1,000 for a second violation within the same
period, and $2,000 for a third violation within the same period. The
Exchange believes that, given the nature of these violations, the
current fine levels are inadequate, and that increased fines for these
violations are needed to deter future violations.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NYSE Arca Rule 6.46(a) requires that a Floor Broker handling
an order use due diligence to execute the order at the best price or
prices available to him, in accordance with the Rules of the
Exchange.
    \6\ NYSE Arca Rule 6.47A states that users may not execute as
principal orders they represent as agent unless (i) agency orders
are first exposed on the Exchange for at least one second or (ii)
the user has been bidding or offering on the Exchange for at least
one second prior to receiving an agency order that is executable
against such bid or offer.
    \7\ NYSE Arca Rule 6.75 states that the highest bid/lowest offer
shall have priority over all other orders. In the event there are
two or more bids/offers for the same option contract representing
the best price and one such bid/offer is displayed in the
Consolidated Book, such bid shall have priority over any other bid
at the post. In addition, if two or more bids/offers represent the
best price and a bid/offer displayed in the Consolidated Book is not
involved, priority shall be afforded to such bids in the sequence in
which they are made. Rule 6.75 also contains certain provisions
related to split-price priority and priority of complex orders.
    \8\ See Notice, supra note 3, 74 FR at 42726.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\9\ In particular, the
Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ which requires that the rules of an exchange be
designed to, among other things, protect investors and the public
interest. The Commission also believes that the proposal is consistent
with Sections 6(b)(1) and 6(b)(6) of the Act,\11\ which require that
the rules of an exchange enforce compliance with, and provide
appropriate discipline for, violations of Commission and exchange
rules. Furthermore, the Commission believes that the proposed changes
to the MRP should strengthen the Exchange's ability to carry out its
oversight and enforcement responsibilities as a self-regulatory
organization in cases where full disciplinary proceedings are
unsuitable in view of the minor nature of the particular violation.
Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
the public interest, the protection of investors, or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as required by Rule 19d-1(c)(2)
under the Act,\12\ which governs minor rule violation plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and 78f(b)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission in no way
minimizes the importance of compliance with NYSE Arca rules and all
other rules subject to the imposition of fines under the MRP. The
Commission believes that the violation of any self-regulatory
organization's rules, as well as Commission rules, is a serious matter.
However, the MRP provides a reasonable means of addressing rule
violations that do not rise to the level of requiring formal
disciplinary proceedings, while providing greater flexibility in
handling certain violations. The Commission expects that NYSE Arca will
continue to conduct surveillance with due diligence and make a
determination based on its findings, on a case-by-case basis, whether a
fine of more or less than the recommended amount is appropriate for a
violation under the MRP or whether a violation requires formal
disciplinary

action under NYSE Arca Rules 10.4-10.11.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\13\ and Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the Act,\14\ that the proposed rule
change (SR-NYSEArca-2009-70) be, and it hereby is, approved and
declared effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12); 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(44).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-23625 Filed 9-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 62630]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24575]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0318; FRL-9901-50-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Magnetic Tape Coating Facilities
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NSPS for Magnetic Tape Coating
Facilities (40 CFR part 60, subpart SSS) (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No.
1135.11, OMB Control No. 2060-0171), to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This is a proposed extension of
the ICR, which is currently approved through November 30, 2013. Public
comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (78 FR
33409) on June 4, 2013, during a 60-day comment period. This notice
allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 21,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0318, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The NSPS for the Magnetic Tape Coating Facilities (40 CFR
part 60, subpart SSS) were: Proposed on January 22, 1986; promulgated
on October 3, 1988; and last amended on February 12, 1999. The affected
entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NSPS at 40 CFR
part 60, subpart A and any changes, or additions to the Provisions
specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart SSS. Owners or operators of the
affected facilities must make an initial notification, performance
tests, periodic reports, and maintain records of the occurrence and
duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of
an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system
is inoperative. Reports are required semiannually at a minimum.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Magnetic tape coating facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart SSS).
    Estimated number of respondents: 6 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, quarterly, and
semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 2,017 hours (per year). ``Burden'' is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $283,727 (per year), includes $86,400
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is no change in labor hours in this
ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two considerations:
(1) The regulations have not changed over the past three years and are
not anticipated to change over the next three years; and (2) the growth
rate for the industry is very low, negative or non-existent, so there
is no significant change in the overall burden. However, there is an
adjustment increase in both the respondent and Agency burden costs due
to an increase in labor rates.

Richard T. Westlund,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-24575 Filed 10-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise

Chambers Works

Deepwater, NJ  08023

CERTIFIED MAIL – Return Receipt Requested

October 20, 2006

Document Control Office

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

EPA East

Room 6428

US Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Re: 	EPA – HQ – OPPT – 2003 - 0012

	DuPont Chambers Works NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005100

	PFOA Data Submittal – Outfall DSN662 Weekly Grab Samples

	July 2006 Sample Data

Dear Document Control Office,

As per Part IV, Section G.5.a of the NJPDES permit, we are submitting a summary of PFOA analytical results for the weekly grab samples taken at internal outfall DSN662A to NJDEP on a monthly basis. Per your request, we are sending you a paper and electronic copy of the report for samples taken during July 2006. We will continue to send you the reports each month.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (856) 540-3105.

Sincerely,

Karen L. Pinder

SET Environmental Coordinator

DuPont Chambers Works

Enclosures

Copies to:

Director, Chemical Control Division

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

EPA East

Room 4146

US Environmental Protection Agency

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DE 20004

Ms. Susan Rosenwinkel (cover letter only)

Principal Environmental Engineer

NJDEP Division of Water Quality

Bureau of Point Source Permitting – Region 2

401 E. State Street

P.O. Box 029

Trenton, NJ 08625-0029


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 241 (Monday, December 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 68520]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27111]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 84 FR 60134,
November 7, 2019.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: Wednesday, December
18, 2019.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The following additional matters will be
considered during the Open Meeting on Wednesday, December 18, 2019:
     Whether to adopt rules under Section 15F(i)(2) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that would require security-based swap
dealers and major security-based swap participants to comply with
certain risk mitigation techniques with respect to portfolios of
uncleared security-based swaps;
     whether to adopt certain rule amendments and guidance
regarding the cross-border application of certain security-based swap
requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that were added
by Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act;
     whether to adopt an order designating certain
jurisdictions as ``listed jurisdictions'' for purposes of one of the
rule amendments noted above;
     whether to propose Rule 13q-1 and an amendment to Form SD
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to implement Section 1504 of
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act relating
to disclosure of payments by resource extraction issuers; and
     whether to propose amendments to the definition of
``accredited investor'' in the Commission's rules that are intended to
update and improve the definition in order to identify more effectively
investors that do not need the protections of registration under the
Securities Act of 1933.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.

    Dated: December 11, 2019.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-27111 Filed 12-12-19; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 39)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 9987]
[DOCID:fr28fe06-38]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2006-0086; FRL-8037-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the state of Iowa for the purpose of establishing
exemptions for indoor sources of air pollution that are not directly
vented to the outside but have emissions that leave the building
through doors, vents or other means. This revision also clarifies that
the permitting exemptions do not relieve the owner or operator of any
source from any obligation to comply with any other applicable
requirements. The state has determined that air pollution emissions
from this equipment are negligible and these exemptions are likely to
result in no significant impact on human health or the environment.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
March 30, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2006-0086 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Heather
Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule that is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the Federal
Register, EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse
comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set
forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are
received in response to this action, no further activity is
contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this
action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives
adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of
the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional
information, see the direct final rule that is located in the rules
section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: February 17, 2006.
James B. Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 06-1787 Filed 2-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28986-28987]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08759]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1013; Airspace Docket No. 23-ASO-20]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class D Airspace; Smyrna, TN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Smyrna, TN Class D airspace description
by replacing the term Notice to Airmen with the term Notice to Air
Missions. This action does not change the boundaries, altitudes, or
operating requirements of the Class D airspace area.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 15, 2023. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all
comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be
viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the FAA Docket number.
Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website.
It is available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact the Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Ledford, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority,
as it amends the Class D airspace description in Smyrna, TN, by
replacing the Notice to Airmen with the Notice to Air Missions.

Incorporation by Reference

    Class D airspace designations are published in Paragraph 5000 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 annually. This document amends
the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective
September 15, 2022. These updates will subsequently be published in the
next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly
available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA
Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air
traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending Class D airspace for
Smyrna Airport, Smyrna, TN, by replacing Notice to Airmen with Notice
to Air Missions. This action does not affect the airspace's boundaries,
altitudes, or operating requirements. Therefore, notice and public
procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (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);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only
affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that
this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances warrant the preparation of an environmental
assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO TN D Smyrna, TN

Smyrna Airport, TN
(Lat 36[deg]00'32'' N, long 86[deg]31'12'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to but not
including 2,500 feet MSL within a 3.9-mile radius of the Smyrna
Airport, and within 1.2 miles each side of the 139[deg] bearing from
the airport, extending from the 3.9-mile radius to 5.5-miles
southeast of the airport, and within 1.2-miles each side of the
184[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from the 3.9-mile
radius to 5.5-miles south of the airport. This Class D airspace area
is effective during the specific dates and times established in
advance by a Notice to Air Missions. The effective dates and times
will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 20, 2023.
Andreese C. Davis,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2023-08759 Filed 5-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10418-10420]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4117]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63925; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-025]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.
By-Laws

February 17, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on February 8, 2011, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
NASDAQ. 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 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC proposes to amend the By-Laws of its
parent corporation, The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. (``NASDAQ OMX'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, 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. 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
    NASDAQ OMX is proposing to make certain clarifying amendments to
its By-Laws. Specifically, NASDAQ OMX is proposing to amend: (i) The
name of the Nominating Committee to the ``Nominating & Governance
Committee''; (ii) a NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. reference to reflect a recent
conversion to a limited liability company; and (iii) By-Law Article IV,
Section 4.4 to clarify that broker nonvotes are not counted as a vote
cast either ``for'' or ``against'' a Director.
    Currently, NASDAQ OMX By-Laws provide for a Nominating Committee
which Committee is appointed pursuant to the By-Laws. The Exchange is
proposing to name this Committee the ``Nominating & Governance
Committee.'' The Exchange proposes to amend the By-Laws to change all
references to ``Nominating Committee'' to state ``Nominating &
Governance Committee.'' The Exchange is proposing to rename the
Nominating Committee in order that all of its current functions are
reflected in the title of the committee. The current functions of the
Nominating Committee encompass certain functions that are deemed
governance functions.
    By way of example, and in addition to the responsibilities listed
in By-Law Article IV, Section 4.13(h), the Nominating Committee
consults with the Board and the management of the Company to determine
the characteristics, skills and experience desired for the Board as a
whole and for its individual members, with the objective of having a
Board that reflects diverse backgrounds. The Non-Executive Chairman of
the Board and the Nominating Committee is also responsible for
overseeing the annual director evaluation. As part of the annual
process of determining director representation on the corporate
committees, the Non-Executive Chairman solicits input from each
committee chair and Board members on the effectiveness of the
committee, the committee chair and the individual Board member. The
Nominating Committee receives the results and reviews the overall
effectiveness of the Board.
    This proposed amendment to rename the Nominating Committee does not
change the function of this committee. This proposal is merely to
clarify the current function of this committee and its governance role
with respect to the Board selection process.
    Second, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. recently filed a rule change to
convert NASDAQ OMX PHLX from a Delaware corporation to a Delaware
limited liability company agreement.\3\ At this time NASDAQ OMX
proposes to amend the definitions at Article 1, specifically section
(o) to change the reference to ``NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.'' to ``NASDAQ
OMX PHLX LLC.'' This amendment is not substantive and merely seeks to
correct the name of a NASDAQ OMX subsidiary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62783 (August 27,
2010), 75 FR 54204 (September 3, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-104).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, NASDAQ OMX proposes to add the words ``and broker
nonvotes'' to By-Law Article IV, Section 4-4 [sic] to clarify that
broker nonvotes are not counted as a vote cast either ``for'' or
``against'' that Director's election.
    In 2009, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') Rule 452 was
amended to eliminate broker discretionary voting for the election of
Directors with one exception.\4\ Previously, NYSE Rule 452 permitted
brokers to vote without voting instructions from the beneficial owner
\5\ on uncontested elections of directors. The rule change requires
instructions from the beneficial owner to give a proxy to vote for a
director with an exception for companies registered under the
Investment Company Act of 1940.\6\ Therefore, when brokers do not have
discretion to vote uninstructed shares on a particular proposal, the
stockholder's failure to instruct the broker will result in a ``broker
nonvote.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60215 (July 1,
2009), 74 FR 33293 (July 10, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2006-92) (a rule change
to eliminate broker discretionary voting for all elections of
directors at shareholder meetings held on or after January 1, 2010,
whether contested or not, except for companies registered under the
1940 Act).
    \5\ A shareholder of a public company may hold shares either
directly, as the record holder, or indirectly, as the beneficial
holder, with the shares held in the name of the beneficial
shareholder's broker-dealer, bank nominee, or custodian
(``securities intermediary''), which is the record holder. The
latter generally is referred to as holding securities in ``street
name.'' Securities intermediaries, on behalf of beneficial owners,
hold a substantial majority of exchange securities.
    \6\ See NYSE Rule 452.10(3) [sic]. The Commission notes that the
correct reference is NYSE Rule 452.11(19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Delaware case law, broker non-votes are not considered as
votes cast for or against a proposal or director nominee.\7\ In its
election of directors, NASDAQ OMX is proposing to clarify its current
practice of not counting a broker nonvote as a vote cast either for or
against a director's election. In 2010, NASDAQ OMX amended its By-Laws
to state that in an uncontested election, a majority voting standard
would apply to the election of its directors.\8\ This requires
directors to be elected by the holders of a majority of the votes cast
at any meeting for the election of directors at which a quorum is
present in an uncontested election. A plurality standard still remains
in a contested election. The practice of not counting a broker nonvote
as a vote cast either for or against a director's election remains
unchanged by the amendment to a majority vote standard. The Exchange is
proposing to retain its current practice and codify such practice in
its By-Laws at Article IV, Section 4.4. This Section 4.4 currently
specifies that abstentions \9\ are similarly not counted as a vote cast
either for or against the director's election.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Berlin v. Emerald Partners, Del Supr. 552 A.2d 482
(1988).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61876 (April 8,
2010), 75 FR 19436 (April 8, 2010) [sic] (SR-NASDAQ-2010-025).
    \9\ An abstention is the voluntary act of not voting by a
stockholder who is present at a meeting and entitled to vote.
    \10\ In either a majority or plurality election, broker non-
votes and abstentions are considered for purposes of establishing a
quorum. A quorum is a majority of the shares entitled to vote,
present in person or by proxy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal is non-substantive and merely clarifies the existing
practice of counting broker non votes [sic]. The Exchange believes that
this additional language to Article IV, Section 4.4 will assist
shareholders in understanding the manor [sic] in which directors are
elected pursuant to NASDAQ OMX's By-Laws.
2. Statutory Basis
    The NASDAQ Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\11\ in general,
and with Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that the
proposal enables the NASDAQ Exchange to be so organized as to have the
capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of the Act and to comply
with and enforce compliance by members and persons associated with
members with provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations
thereunder, and self-regulatory organization rules, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(2), [sic] (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments are clarifying
amendments or are non-substantive. The proposals would provide the
proper Committee and entity names, with respect to the proposals to
change the Nominating Committee and NASDAQ OMX PHLX names, and in the
case of the broker nonvote proposal, would provide additional
information to shareholders. The Exchange believes that these proposed
amendments protect investors and the public interest, including NASDAQ
OMX shareholders, in that the proposed changes would serve to clarify
NASDAQ OMX's By-Laws and processes for its annual election.

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

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

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 self-regulatory organization 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2011-025 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-NASDAQ-2011-025. 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 website
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASDAQ-
2011-025 and should be submitted on or before March 17, 2011.

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

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

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-4117 Filed 2-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P