[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 191 (Thursday, October 1, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61811-61813]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21484]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0443; Project Identifier AD-2020-00178-E;
Amendment 39-21268; AD 2020-20-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-1B64, -1B64/P1, -1B64/P2, -1B67, -
1B67/P1, -1B67P2, -1B70, -1B70/75/P1, -1B70/75/P2, -1B70/P1, -1B70/P2,
-1B70C/P1, -1B70C/P2, -1B74/75/P1, -1B74/75/P2, -1B76/P2, and -1B76A/P2
model turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by reports of combustor
case burn-through. This AD requires installation of electronic engine
control (EEC) software, version B205 or later. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 5, 2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact General Electric Company, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website:
www.ge.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0443.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0443; 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, any comments received, and other information. The
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: Mehdi Lamnyi, Aerospace Engineer, ECO
Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-
238-7743; fax:<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 all GE GEnx-1B64, -
1B64/P1, -1B64/P2, -1B67, -1B67/P1, -1B67P2, -1B70, -1B70/75/P1, -1B70/
75/P2, -1B70/P1, -1B70/P2, -1B70C/P1, -1B70C/P2, -1B74/75/P1, -1B74/75/
P2, -1B76/P2, and -1B76A/P2 model turbofan engines. The NPRM published
in the Federal Register on May 6, 2020 (85 FR 26891). The NPRM was
prompted by reports of combustor case burn-through. The NPRM proposed
to require installation of EEC software, version B205 or later. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Supersede Existing AD

    American Airlines (AAL) suggested that the FAA change this AD to
supersede docket number FAA-2019-0683, project identifier 2015-NE-02-AD
(84 FR 63820, November 19, 2019) (``NPRM 2015-NE-02-AD''). NPRM 2015-
NE-02-AD proposed removing EEC software version B195 and earlier from
GEnx-1B engines, along with an equivalent EEC software for GEnx-2B
engines to improve safeguards against ice crystal icing. EEC software
version B205 incorporates all required changes that satisfy the intent
of NPRM 2015-NE-02.
    The FAA disagrees. The unsafe condition addressed by this AD was
prompted by reports of combustor case burn-through. In contrast, the
final rule to NPRM 2015-NE-02-AD, AD 2020-13-04, Amendment 39-21149 (85
FR 37000, June 19, 2020) (``AD 2020-13-04'') was prompted by power loss
in ice crystal icing conditions. Although the ice crystal icing
required actions of AD 2020-13-04 are achieved through the update to
EEC software version B205, the unsafe conditions that prompted each AD
are different, and the corrective actions are independent. Further, AD
2020-13-04 affects more GEnx model turbofan engines than this AD.

Request To Add Terminating Action

    AAL requested the FAA add that compliance with this AD is a
terminating action to paragraphs (g) and (i) of AD 2013-24-01,
Amendment 39-17675 (78 FR 70851, November 27, 2013) (``AD 2013-24-
01''), similar to the terminating action in AD 2017-09-06, Amendment
39-18868 (82 FR 21111, May 5, 2017) (``2017-09-06''). AAL noted that
NPRM 2015-NE-02-AD (AD 2020-13-04) indicated that it would supersede AD
2017-09-06, but did not provide a terminating action to paragraphs (g)
and (i) of AD 2013-24-01, as was done in AD 2017-09-06. AAL commented
that EEC software version B205 incorporated the software changes to
address the unsafe ice crystal icing condition so compliance with
paragraphs (g) and (i) of AD 2013-24-01 should no longer be required.
    The FAA disagrees. As indicated in a comment response to NPRM 2015-
NE-02-AD, the FAA disagreed with adding a terminating action in AD
2020-13-04 because the FAA's approval of alternative methods of
compliance to AD 2013-24-01 made a terminating action unnecessary in
AD-2020-13-04. In this AD, the FAA finds that adding a terminating
action is not justified as this AD does not address the unsafe ice
crystal icing condition of AD 2020-13-04, AD 2017-09-06, and AD 2013-
24-01. Therefore, no change to this AD is needed.

Request To Add Boeing Service Information

    Qantas Airways Limited (Qantas) commented that GE GEnx-1B Service
Bulletin (SB) 73-0085 R00, dated December 23, 2019, describes
procedures for installing the EEC software version B205. Qantas further
noted that procedures for on-wing installation of EEC software version
B205 is described in Boeing B787-81205 SB-730057-00, Issue 001, dated
December 23, 2019; Boeing B787-81205 SB-730057-00, Issue 002, dated
February 28, 2020; or later FAA approved revisions. The FAA interprets
Qantas' comment as a request to add Boeing B787-81205 SB-730057-00,
Issue 001, dated December 23, 2019, and Issue 002, dated February 28,
2020; and later FAA approved revisions, to the Related Service
Information section of this AD.
    The FAA disagrees with adding the Boeing service information to
this AD as Related Service Information as that service information is
not necessary to satisfy the requirements of this AD. This AD requires
the installation of the EEC software version B205 or later without
imposing an installation method. The EEC software can be installed
either at the engine-level or on-wing at the aircraft-level using FAA-
approved procedures.

Request To Clarify Applicability

    United Airlines (UAL) requested the FAA to clarify if EEC software
version B205 or later must be installed on spare EECs or only on
engines installed on aircraft, prior to operation.
    An operator of a product that does not meet the requirements of an
applicable airworthiness directive is in violation of 14 CFR 39.7. The
intent of this AD is to prevent operation of any affected engine
installed on an aircraft with EEC software, version B200 or earlier.
The requirements of this AD do not apply to spare engines and spare
EECs, as they cannot be operated unless installed on an aircraft. No
change to this AD is needed.

Support for the AD

    The Boeing Company and the Air Line Pilots Association,
International, expressed support for the AD as written. AAL supports
the intent of the AD.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed except for minor editorial
changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed GE GEnx-1B SB 73-0085 R00, dated December 23,
2019. The SB describes procedures for installing the EEC software
version B205.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 176 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Install EEC software version B205 or  1 work-hour x $85 per                $0              $85          $14,960
 later.                                hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) 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 (AD):

2020-20-12 General Electric Company: Amendment 39-21268; Docket No.
FAA-2020-0443; Project Identifier AD-2020-00178-E.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 5, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to General Electric Company GEnx-1B64, -1B64/P1,
-1B64/P2, -1B67, -1B67/P1, -1B67P2, -1B70, -1B70/75/P1, -1B70/75/P2,
-1B70/P1, -1B70/P2, -1B70C/P1, -1B70C/P2, -1B74/75/P1, -1B74/75/P2,
-1B76/P2, and -1B76A/P2 model turbofan engines.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7240, Turbine Engine
Combustion Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by two reports of combustor case burn-
through. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the fuel
nozzle. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in
damage to the combustor case, engine fire, and damage to the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, install
electronic engine control (EEC) software that is eligible for
installation.

(h) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, EEC software that is eligible for
installation is EEC software that is version B205 or later.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. You may email your request
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.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Mehdi Lamnyi,
Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on September 24, 2020.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-21484 Filed 9-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 164 (Thursday, August 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42741-42743]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18156]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83868; File No. SR-FINRA-2018-030]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
FINRA Rule 7730 (Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE)) To
Remove Computer-to-Computer Interface as a Technological Option for
TRACE Reporting

August 17, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 15, 2018, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') 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 by FINRA. 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

    FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 7730 to modify the
technological connectivity options available to members for reporting
transactions to TRACE.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's
website at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 7730 (Trade Reporting and
Compliance Engine (TRACE)) to remove Computer-to-Computer Interface
(``CTCI'') as a technological means of connectivity for use in
reporting transactions to TRACE.
    Technology and connectivity options have evolved since the
inception of the TRACE system (at which time CTCI, rather than
Financial Information eXchange (``FIX''), was made available for TRACE
reporting purposes).\3\ FINRA has determined that it is now appropriate
to remove CTCI--a Nasdaq proprietary protocol--as a means of
connectivity. Accordingly, firms would be required to report
transactions to TRACE using one of the remaining currently available
options: (i) Web browser access; (ii) FIX line access; or (iii)
indirectly via third-party intermediaries (e.g., service bureaus).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 42201 (December 3,
1999), 64 FR 69305 (December 10, 1999) (Notice of Filing of File No.
SR-NASD-99-65).
    \4\ See Rule 7730.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA notes that FIX--an industry standard protocol--is an
immediately available and viable alternative to CTCI that already is
widely used by members. Since adding FIX as a protocol for transaction
reporting to TRACE in 2011 for Securitized Products (and for corporates
and Agency Debt Securities in 2012), approximately two thirds of firms
with direct connections, and half of the service bureaus, have opted to
migrate from CTCI to FIX. In fact, the majority of members that report
trades to TRACE currently connect via FIX,\5\ and FINRA believes that
an increasing amount of firms and service bureaus will continue to
migrate to FIX.\6\ FINRA also believes that removing CTCI as a means of
connectivity will reduce operational overhead and risk for FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Currently, 61 members have direct FIX connections for TRACE
reporting, 32 have direct CTCI connections, and 709 members have web
browser access (the 709 firms with web browser access also may have
CTCI or FIX access for connecting to TRACE). The top five members
that connect through CTCI for reporting transactions to TRACE
represent 63% of all TRACE reports submitted directly using a CTCI
connection. In addition, five service bureaus report to TRACE
through CTCI connections and five report through FIX connections.
The five service bureaus that use CTCI report transactions to TRACE
on behalf of 191 members in aggregate, with over 95% of these
transaction reports received from one service bureau. For all TRACE-
eligible securities, approximately 33% of all transaction reports
are received via CTCI, which consists of 23% submitted by members
with direct CTCI connections and 10% by service bureaus connected
via CTCI.
    \6\ For example, members may report trades to the recently
approved second FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility via FIX but
firms will not have the option to report trades via CTCI. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83082 (April 20, 2018), 83 FR
18379 (April 26, 2018) (Notice of Filing of File No. SR-FINRA-2018-
013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 7730 to remove CTCI
as a means of connectivity for members to report transactions to
TRACE.\7\ FINRA intends to provide ample time, until February 3, 2020,
to allow firms that still use CTCI as a means of connectivity to
migrate, and will permit members to migrate at any point throughout the
implementation period. During that timeframe, FINRA also will engage in
extensive outreach with the industry to assist in migration awareness
and efforts.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ FINRA will be eliminating CTCI as a means of connectivity
for reporting to all FINRA trade reporting facilities.
    \8\ In addition to general outreach (industry-wide calls and a
Technical Notice), FINRA will contact each individual firm that
directly reports to TRACE via CTCI by email and telephone to provide
information and assistance in connection with the migration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, the effective
date of the proposed rule change will be February 3, 2020.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\9\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 7730 to remove CTCI as a means of
connectivity for members to report transactions to TRACE. FINRA does
not believe the proposed rule change will have a significant impact, as
a majority of members already use FIX as a means of connectivity to
report trades to TRACE, and FINRA believes that an increasing amount of
members and service providers are migrating to exclusive use of FIX.
FIX is an industry standard protocol that is an immediately available
and viable alternative for the minority of members who directly use
CTCI as a means of connectivity to report transactions to TRACE.

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Economic Impact Assessment
    FINRA has undertaken an economic impact assessment, as set forth
below, to further analyze the regulatory need for the proposed rule
change, the economic baseline, the economic impact, and the
alternatives considered.
Regulatory Need
    Rule 7730 provides that members may report transactions to TRACE
via CTCI protocol. Due to technological advances, FINRA is proposing to
discontinue supporting CTCI as means of connectivity for members to
report transactions. Therefore, FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 7730
to reflect this change.
Economic Baseline
    The baseline for the proposed amendment is current Rule 7730, which
allows members to report to TRACE via (1) CTCI, (2) FIX, (3) web
browser, or (4) indirectly via a third party intermediary. Presently,
32 members directly report transactions to TRACE via CTCI and 61
members directly report transactions to TRACE via FIX. In addition,
five service bureaus report transactions to TRACE via FIX (on behalf of
25 members), and five service bureaus report transactions to TRACE via
CTCI (on behalf of 191 members).\10\ Firms reporting via either CTCI or
FIX are charged $25/month to do so. Firms that report via a web browser
are charged $20/month per user ID. For all TRACE-eligible securities,
approximately 33% of all transaction reports are received via CTCI,
which consists of 23% submitted by members with direct CTCI connections
and 10% by service bureaus connected via CTCI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic Impact
    The proposal would apply equally to all members who report
transactions to TRACE. However, there is no impact to firms that
currently report via FIX or a web browser. Only firms reporting via
CTCI would incur additional costs as a result of the proposed rule
change.
    There are 223 members that use CTCI (either directly or indirectly)
for TRACE reporting purposes.\11\ However, the majority of these
members (191) are indirectly impacted--i.e., those who report through a
service bureau--since most of the work to migrate to the FIX protocol
will be performed by the service bureaus. Although the service bureaus
may choose to pass some or all of the cost of reprogramming on to the
member firms, the costs would be spread across these firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ At the time of this filing, 309 members report to TRACE via
CTCI or FIX (either directly or indirectly).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 32 members reporting directly via their own CTCI connection
would incur costs associated with reporting via a new method. These
members would face a tradeoff between greater upfront costs and on-
going efficiencies. The development of a compliant FIX submission
protocol would require up-front investment, but could provide cost-
saving efficiency over time.\12\ A firm that chooses not to replace
CTCI with FIX, but instead chooses to submit their trades via web
browser access, will require a more limited initial investment, but
relatively more on-going cost. Presumably, firms will choose a new
reporting method that minimizes their overall costs or maximizes their
efficiency. Anecdotally, FINRA understands that some firms are
contemplating discontinuing use of CTCI and migrating to FIX. For these
firms, however, the proposal may result in them incurring certain costs
sooner than planned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The programming costs that these firms incur would vary due
to a number of factors, including existing expertise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For FINRA, each protocol type requires maintenance and support, and
maintaining two protocols increases operational risk.\13\ There is
inherent risk associated with supporting any information technology
system, including risk of an operational failure. Since CTCI currently
is used to collect transaction information, an operational event could
negatively impact any market stakeholder that uses disseminated
transaction information. Thus, a benefit of this proposal would be to
eliminate risk associated with supporting CTCI. Since an operational
event could harm the integrity of the market (by resulting in
information asymmetry), this benefit should accrue to all market
stakeholders. Thus, it is FINRA's view that the benefits of the
amendment outweigh any associated cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ FINRA also should realize cost savings as a result of the
proposal, since it no longer would need to maintain a CTCI protocol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternatives Considered
    FINRA considered maintaining the status quo and continuing to
support CTCI. However, given the decreased reliance on the protocol and
that the owner of the protocol does not intend to support it for its
new facility,\14\ FINRA determined that it is now appropriate to retire
the protocol for the purpose of reporting transactions to FINRA
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor 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 will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2018-030 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2018-030. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule

change 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 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of FINRA. All comments received will be posted without
change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact
or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2018-
030, and should be submitted on or before September 13, 2018.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-18156 Filed 8-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 201)]
[Notices]
[Page 61464-61465]
[DOCID:fr18oc06-40]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0697; FRL-8091-8]

Pesticide Product; Registration Application

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of an application to register a
pesticide product containing a new active ingredient not included in
any previously registered products pursuant to the provisions of
section 3(c)(4) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA), as amended.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 17, 2006

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0697, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0697. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line 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 regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website 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
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the 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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket 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, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation
of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Peacock, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or 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. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:

    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Registration Applications

    EPA received an application as follows to register a pesticide
product containing a new active ingredient not included in any
previously registered products pursuant to the provision of section
3(c)(4) of FIFRA. Notice of receipt of this application does not imply
a decision by the Agency on the application.

Product Containing an Active Ingredient not Included in any Previously
Registered Product

    File Symbol: 47629-RE. Applicant: Woodstream Corporation, 69 North
Locust Street, Lititz, PA 17543. Product name: Difenacoum Technical.
Type of product: Rodenticide. Active ingredient: Difenacoum at 99.0%.
Proposal classification/Use: Classification is not applicable. For
manufacture into end-use products of 0.005% active ingredient; to
control Norway rats, roof rats, and house mice in and around structures
and inside of transport vehicles.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest.

    Dated: October 3, 2006.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-17228 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 180 (Friday, September 16, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57696-57701]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23855]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2011-0687, FRL-9465-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York;
Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Programs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action
on a proposed State Implementation Plan revision submitted by the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation. This revision
consists of changes to New York's motor vehicle enhanced inspection and
maintenance program that would eliminate the transient emission short
test program as it relates to the New York portion of the New York-
Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT 8-hour ozone moderate
nonattainment area. EPA is proposing approval of this State
Implementation Plan revision because it meets all applicable
requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's regulations and because the
revision will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the
national ambient air quality standards in the affected area. The
intended effect of this action is to maintain consistency between the
State-adopted rules and the Federally approved SIP.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 17, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA-R02-
OAR-2011-0687, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
     Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. 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, 8:30 to
4:30 excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2011-
0687. 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. 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 or any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center 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 Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway,
25th Floor, New York,

New York 10007-1866. EPA requests, if at all possible, that you contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the
docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk Wieber (wieber.kirk@epa.gov), Air
Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. Background Information
    What are the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for a moderate 8-
hr ozone nonattainment area?
    History of the Ozone Standard and Area Designations CAA
Requirements for I/M Programs
III. What was included in New York's proposed SIP submittal?
IV. What are the I/M performance standard requirements and does New
York's I/M program satisfy them?
V. Does New York demonstrate noninterference with attainment and
maintenance under Section 110(l) of the CAA?
VI. What are EPA's conclusions?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the New York State
Implementation Plan (SIP) pertaining to New York's motor vehicle
enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) program that proposes to end
tailpipe testing on December 31, 2010. This proposed SIP revision also
outlines several changes to New York's enhanced I/M programs currently
operating within the New York portion of the New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area. New York proposes to
reduce the percentage of emissions waivers allowed within that area to
2% (from 3%). New York indicates that the decentralized program, which
features on-board diagnostics inspections, is as effective as a
centralized test-only program for modeling purposes.

II. Background Information

What are the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for a moderate 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area?

 History of the Ozone Standard and Area Designations
    In 1997, EPA revised the health-based national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million
averaged over an 8-hour period. EPA set the 8-hour ozone standard based
on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health
effects at lower ozone concentrations and over longer periods of time
than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard was
set. EPA determined that the 8-hour standard would be more protective
of human health, especially with regard to children and adults who are
active outdoors, and individuals with a pre-existing respiratory
disease, such as asthma.
    On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA finalized its attainment/
nonattainment designations for areas across the country with respect to
the 8-hour ozone standard. These actions became effective on June 15,
2004. The New York portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area is composed of the five boroughs of
New York City and the surrounding counties of Nassau, Suffolk,
Westchester and Rockland. This is collectively referred to as the New
York City Metropolitan Area or NYMA. The NYMA was classified as a
severe ozone nonattainment area under the pre-existing 1-hour ozone
standard. These designations triggered the requirements under section
182(b) of the CAA for moderate and above nonattainment areas, including
a requirement to submit an enhanced motor vehicle I/M program.
 CAA Requirements for I/M Programs
    The CAA requires certain states to implement an enhanced I/M
program to detect gasoline-fueled motor vehicles that exhibit excessive
emissions of certain air pollutants. The enhanced I/M program is
intended to help states meet Federal health-based NAAQS for ozone and
carbon monoxide by requiring vehicles with excess emissions to have
their emissions control systems repaired. Section 182 of the CAA
requires I/M programs in those areas of the nation that are most
impacted by carbon monoxide and ozone pollution.
    On April 5, 2001, EPA published in the Federal Register
``Amendments to Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program Requirements
Incorporating the On-Board Diagnostics Check'' (66 FR 18156). The
revised I/M rule requires that electronic checks of the On-Board
Diagnostics (OBD) system on model year 1996 and newer OBD-equipped
motor vehicles be conducted as part of states' motor vehicle I/M
programs.
    OBD is part of the sophisticated vehicle powertrain management
system and is designed to detect engine and transmission problems that
might cause vehicle emissions to exceed allowable limits.
    The OBD system monitors the status of up to 11 emission control
related subsystems by performing either continuous or periodic
functional tests of specific components and vehicle conditions. The
first three testing categories--misfire, fuel trim, and comprehensive
components--are continuous, while the remaining eight only run after a
certain set of conditions has been met. The algorithms for running
these eight periodic monitors are unique to each manufacturer and
involve such things as ambient temperature as well as driving
conditions. Most vehicles will have at least five of the eight
remaining monitors (catalyst, evaporative system, oxygen sensor, heated
oxygen sensor, and exhaust gas recirculation or EGR system) while the
remaining three (air conditioning, secondary air, and heated catalyst)
are not necessarily applicable to all vehicles. When a vehicle is
scanned at an OBD-I/M test site, these monitors can appear as either
``ready'' (meaning the monitor in question has been evaluated), ``not
ready'' (meaning the monitor has not yet been evaluated), or ``not
applicable'' (meaning the vehicle is not equipped with the component
monitor in question).
    The OBD system is also designed to fully evaluate the vehicle
emissions control system. If the OBD system detects a problem that may
cause vehicle emissions to exceed 1.5 times the Federal Test Procedure
standards, then the Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL) is illuminated.
By turning on the MIL, the OBD system notifies the vehicle operator
that an emission-related fault has been detected, and the vehicle
should be repaired as soon as possible thus reducing the harmful
emissions contributed by that vehicle.
    EPA's revised OBD I/M rule applies to only those areas that are
required to implement I/M programs under the CAA, which include the
NYMA and certain counties in Upstate New York. This rule established a
deadline of January 1, 2002 for states to begin performing OBD checks
on 1996 and newer model OBD-equipped vehicles and to require repairs to
be performed on those vehicles with malfunctions identified by the OBD
check.
    On May 7, 2001 (66 FR 22922), EPA fully approved New York's
enhanced I/M program as it applies to NYMA and included the State's
performance standard modeling as meeting the applicable requirements of
the CAA. The OBD component of that program was not being implemented at
that time

and therefore was not approved by EPA as satisfying a fully operational
OBD program.
    However, on February 21, 2007 (72 FR 7826) EPA fully approved a
revision to New York's SIP that incorporates OBD system requirements in
the NYMA and the 53 counties located in upstate New York, therefore
making OBD a statewide requirement. The reader is referred to that
rulemaking action for a more detailed discussion on New York's OBD
program.

III. What was included in New York's proposed SIP submittal?

    After completing the appropriate public notice and comment
procedures, on July 10, 2009, the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted to EPA a proposed SIP
revision that includes changes to the New York State enhanced I/M
program. The changes include a proposal to end tailpipe testing through
the New York Transient Emissions Short Test (NYTEST) I/M program on
December 31, 2010. The proposed revision also includes a reduction in
the percentage of emissions test waivers allowed within NYMA to 2%
(from 3%) beginning in calendar year 2008. The SIP revision includes
MOBILE6 vehicle emission modeling software (MOBILE6) demonstration for
the high enhanced I/M performance standard.
    On February 15, 2011, NYSDEC made a supplemental SIP submittal to
EPA which included recent revisions to Title 6 of the New York Codes,
Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), Part 217, ``Motor Vehicle Emissions,''
and the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (NYSDMV) regulation
found at Title 15 NYCRR Part 79, ``Motor Vehicle Inspection.'' New York
adopted these rule revisions to end the NYTEST I/M program. This
submittal was also subject to public notice and comment.

IV. What are the I/M performance standard requirements and does New
York's I/M program satisfy them?

    Table 1 below compares New York's existing NYMA I/M program
requirements, which includes both the New York Vehicle Inspection
Program (NYVIP) and NYTEST programs, to a future design after the
NYTEST tailpipe testing program ends (``Post-NYTEST'').

                                 Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle type current NYMA I/    (NYVIP and NYTEST
              M                     Programs)            Post-NYTEST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-electric and non-diesel   Emissions Test Type:  Emissions Test Type:
 light-duty vehicles (<8,501   NYVIP OBD II.         NYVIP OBD II
 lbs. GVWR), MYs 1996 to 2    ECD Checks for        ECD Checks for
 MYs old.                      Weight Code 1: air    Weight Code 1: air
                               pump, fuel inlet      pump, fuel inlet
                               restrictor, EGR,      restrictor, EGR,
                               PCV, TAC, CAT, EVAP   PCV, TAC, CAT, EVAP
                               system disablement.   system disablement.
                              Gas Cap: Cap          Gas Cap: Cap
                               Presence Only.        Presence Only.
Non-electric and non-diesel   Emissions Test Type:  Emissions Test Type:
 light-duty vehicles (<8,501   NYTEST Transient.     Low Enhanced:
 lbs. GVWR), 25 MYs old to    ECD Checks for        ECD Checks for
 MY 1995.                      Weight Code 1: air    Weight Code 1: air
                               pump, fuel inlet      pump, fuel inlet
                               restrictor, EGR,      restrictor, EGR,
                               PCV, TAC, CAT, EVAP   PCV, TAC, CAT, EVAP
                               system disablement.   system disablement.
                              Gas Cap: NYTEST       Gas Cap: Cap
                               Pressure Test.        Presence only.
Non-electric and non-diesel   Emissions Test Type:  Emissions Test Type:
 medium- and heavy-duty        NYTEST Idle.          Low Enhanced:
 vehicles (8,501-<18,001      ECD Checks for        ECD Checks for
 lbs. GVWR), 25 MYs old to     Weight Codes 2 and    Weight Codes 2 and
 older than 2MYs (DMV Weight   3: air pump, fuel     3: air pump, fuel
 Codes 2, 3).                  inlet restrictor,     inlet restrictor,
                               EGR, PCV, TAC, CAT,   EGR, PCV, TAC, CAT,
                               EVAP system           EVAP system
                               disablement..         disablement.
                              Gas Cap: NYTEST       Gas Cap: Cap
                               Pressure Test.        Presence only.
Non-electric and non-diesel   Emissions Test Type:  Safety only (NYVIP)
 medium- and heavy-duty        NYTEST Idle.         (No emissions, ECD,
 vehicles (>18,000 lbs.       ECD Checks for         or gas cap checks).
 GVWR), 25 MYs old to older    Weight Code 4: air
 than 2MYs (DMV Weight Code    pump, fuel inlet
 4).                           restrictor, EGR,
                               PCV, TAC, CAT, EVAP
                               system disablement.
                              Gas Cap: NYTEST
                               Pressure Test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The reader is referred to the following NYSDEC Web site for a list
  of Acronyms and Abbreviations: http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/53288.html.

    I/M programs are designed and implemented to meet or exceed an
applicable minimum Federal performance standard. EPA's performance
standards were derived from MOBILE6 utilizing ``model'' inputs and
local characteristics (i.e., vehicle mix, fuel controls). Performance
standards are expressed as emissions levels, in area-wide average grams
per mile (gpm) values, resulting from the I/M program. More
conventionally, performance standards are expressed as emission
reductions, as compared to a no I/M scenario. The NYSDEC determined
EPA's high enhanced performance standard (HEPS) by utilizing the
``model'' inputs contained under 40 CFR 51.351(f)(1) through (f)(13).
While I/M jurisdictions are allowed to adopt alternate design features
other than EPA's ``model'' inputs, compliance with the applicable
performance standard must be demonstrated for the pollutant(s) that
established I/M requirements.
    NYSDEC proposed changes that differ from the initial 1996 NYMA
demonstration. These modifications will affect a revised NYMA HEPS
demonstration as follows:

-- Emissions test type changes to reflect the end of NYTEST tailpipe
testing (see Table above);
-- New York estimated, and included a justification that the NYVIP OBD-
based I/M program is as effective as a centralized test-only
network.\1\ The previously approved NYTEST network effectiveness of
88%, 84%, and 86% for hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and oxides of
nitrogen, respectively, are no longer applicable to the NYVIP program;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ New York identified four general program enhancements to
serve as the basis for claiming 100% test-and-repair credit for
NYVIP; Program Manager Network Design, System Integrity/Enhanced
Enforcement, Training/Certification, and Inspector and Motorist
Information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- New York evaluated, and included a justification for using MOBILE6
national default values for annual vehicle mileage accumulations rather
than using local inputs derived from the outdated Nationwide Personal
Transportation Survey (NPTS, 1995), as was previously used in the 1996
and 2006 I/M SIPs;
-- A commitment to increase the stringency of the NYMA waiver rate to
2% beginning in 2008, as opposed

to a 3% waiver rate claimed within the 1996 SIP.
-- Of note, MOBILE5 previously allowed for partial repair technician
training credit. New York previously claimed 50% repair technician
credit within the 1996 SIP revision for the NYSDMV sponsored automotive
technician training program. MOBILE6 does not allow for partial repair
technician training, therefore no additional credit is assumed within
this modeling effort.

    With each new calendar year (beginning January 1), a greater
percentage of NYMA vehicles will receive OBD II inspections through
NYVIP I/M while the percentage of NYTEST inspections will decrease due
to the 25 model year extension and escalated vehicle turnover (compared
to newer NYVIP vehicles). To determine the date that a NYVIP only based
I/M program complies with EPA's HEPS (i.e., following the end of the
NYTEST tailpipe emissions testing), NYSDEC completed a multi-year
modeling analysis employing the following general inputs:
    Network Type: decentralized test-and -repair.
    NYVIP NYMA Start Date: 2006.
    Test Frequency: annual.
    Test-and-Repair Effectiveness: 100%.
    Vehicle Types: LDV, LDT1, LDT2, LDT3, LDT4.
    Visual Inspection Tests: air pump, catalyst, fuel inlet restrictor,
EGR, evaporative disablement, PCV, and missing gas cap.
    Applicable model years: model years 25 and newer.
    Emissions Test Types: OBD: I/M & Evap.
    Waiver Rate: 2% (beginning in CY 2008).
    Compliance Rate: 98%.
    OBD Exemption Ages: LDVs older than model year 1996, 2 newest model
years.
    Pre-81 Stringency: N/A.
    Repair Technician Training: 0% credit.
    NYMA I/M benefits were estimated using the MOBILE6 emission model
and individual inputs for each county in the NYMA nonattainment area.
Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (DVMT) inventory was constructed by the
New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) to provide DVMT
estimates by county, geographic component (urban, small urban, and
rural) and functional class. This resulting vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) by county and by functional class is then multiplied by a
seasonal adjustment factor to account for seasonal differences. This
seasonal adjustment factor, which appropriately takes into account
hourly temperature, relative humidity data and other factors, is also
supplied by the NYSDOT.
    The vehicle mix for each of the 11 NYSDOT regions in New York State
are used to produce VMT by vehicle type. There are 28 fuel and weight
based categories employed by MOBILE6. The main objective was to create
a separate, distinct (where justified) vehicle mix for each of the
twelve roadway types in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
classification scheme. However, an hourly VMT was input to the model
using the VMT BY HOUR command and was used in the computation of the
composite daily emission factor. The local data were obtained through
analyses conducted by NYSDOT.
    The vehicle distributions used in MOBILE6 were obtained from the
New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (NYSDMV) registration
database for the current year at the beginning of July. Each record was
sorted into the 28 vehicle types by county.
    NYSDEC's MOBILE6 modeling demonstration estimated volatile organic
compound (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) reductions for a
NYVIP-only program in NYMA against EPA's HEPS. Modeling comparisons
were completed for the 2009, 2010, and 2011 ozone seasons. The HEPS
evaluation included the 0.02 gpm emission level margin
provided by 40 CFR 51.351(f)(13). While MOBILE6 reports gpm emission
levels to the thousandths place, the calculated differences between the
future NYVIP program and HEPS were rounded to the hundredths place to
reflect the 0.02 gpm margin. Carbon Monoxide (CO)
reductions are included for demonstration purposes. The summary of New
York's multi-year modeling evaluation is provided below in Table 2.

           Table 2--NYVIP-Only High Enhanced I/M Performance Standard Comparison Future Ozone Seasons
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  VMT
                                                               (1,000's)    VOC (gpm)     CO (gpm)    NOX (gpm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009................................  EPA's HEPS............   212,776.18        0.576        5.149        0.842
                                      Target NYVIP..........       ''            0.606        5.446        0.857
                                      Difference............  ...........       (0.03)       (0.30)       (0.02)
                                      Is it within the 0.02   ...........           No           No         Yes.
                                       gpm margin?.
2010................................  EPA's HEPS............   216,180.83        0.520        4.807        0.750
                                      Target NYVIP..........       ''            0.547        5.072        0.766
                                      Difference............  ...........       (0.03)       (0.27)       (0.02)
                                      Is it within the 0.02   ...........           No           No         Yes.
                                       gpm margin?.
2011................................  EPA's HEPS............   219,585.48        0.474        4.526        0.670
                                      Target NYVIP..........       ''            0.495        4.739        0.684
                                      Difference............  ...........       (0.02)       (0.21)       (0.01)
                                      Is it within the 0.02   ...........          Yes           No         Yes.
                                       gpm margin?.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As Table 2 indicates, the NYVIP I/M program alone cannot meet EPA's
HEPS in either the 2009 or 2010 ozone seasons (June 1-September 30),
but does meet EPA's HEPS for the 2011 ozone season (i.e., prior to June
1). NYSDEC proposed that tailpipe testing be discontinued on December
31, 2010. NYSDEC believed this was the best date between the 2010 and
2011 ozone seasons to implement regulatory and inspection software
based changes.

EPA's Evaluation

    EPA has reviewed NYSDEC's proposed changes to its enhanced I/M
program that differ from the previous Federally approved program and
has determined that those changes satisfy the high enhanced performance
standard, by utilizing the ``model'' inputs contained under 40 CFR
51.351(f)(1) through (f)(13), and are therefore approvable into the
SIP. EPA will continue to evaluate the New York enhanced I/M program
effectiveness through the annual and biennial reports submitted by the
NYSDEC in accordance with 40 CFR 51.366, ``Data Analysis and
Reporting.''

V. Does New York demonstrate noninterference with attainment and
maintenance under Section 110(l) of the CAA?

    Revisions to SIP-approved control measures must meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(l) to be approved by EPA. Section
110(l) states: `` * * * The Administrator shall not approve a revision
of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as
defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of this
Act.''
    EPA interprets section 110(l) to apply to all requirements of the
CAA and to all areas of the country, whether attainment, nonattainment,
unclassifiable, or maintenance for one or more of the six criteria
pollutants. EPA also interprets section 110(l) to require a
demonstration addressing all pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient
concentrations may change as a result of the SIP revision. Thus, for
example, modification of a SIP-approved measure may impact
NOX emissions, may also impact PM2.5 emissions,
and this would have to be evaluated. The scope and rigor of an adequate
section 110(l) demonstration of noninterference depends on the air
quality status of the area, the potential impact of the revision on air
quality, the pollutant(s) affected, and the nature of the applicable
CAA requirements.
    It is important to note, aside from ozone, the NYMA is attaining
the NAAQS for all of the other criteria pollutants, including
PM2.5 and carbon monoxide. There are two SIPs where I/M has
been included as an emission reduction control measure, the 1-hour and
8-hour ozone SIPs. For the 8-hour ozone SIP, New York included in the
attainment demonstration the proposed I/M program as discussed in this
action, so no further evaluation is needed.
    For the 1-hour ozone SIP, NYSDEC discusses the ``anti-backsliding''
provisions within the Rate of Progress/Reasonable Further Progress
Demonstration discussion of its I/M SIP submittal. Since the NYTEST
program is part of the 1-hour ozone SIP for the NYMA, NYSDEC must, in
accordance with CAA section 181(b)(4), continue to meet the reasonable
further progress requirements of CAA section 182(b)(1). In other words,
NYSDEC needs to ``make up'' for any decrease in projected emission
reductions, as indicated in Table 3, that will occur as a result of the
changes being made to the I/M program through the application of
programs not already included in the 1-hour ozone SIP.

  Table 3--NYVIP-Only High Enhanced I/M Performance Standard Comparison
                            2011 Ozone Season
                         [In tons per day (tpd)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       VMT
                                    (1,000's)    VOC (tpd)    NOX (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011    EPA HEPS.................   219,585.48       114.49       161.83
        Target NYVIP.............       ''           119.56       165.22
        Difference/Shortfall.....  ...........       (5.07)       (3.39)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its submittal, NYSDEC noted it had or was planning to adopt
revisions to its regulations (6 NYCRR Parts 228, 235, 241 and 243) that
would more than make up this difference.
    As part of the NYMA ozone attainment demonstration SIP, NYSDEC has
estimated the emission reductions that will result from each of these
control measures. The expected reductions in 2011 are identified below
in Table 4.

                                                     Table 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State effective                    Reduction in
             Regulation                      Rule name                date           Pollutant      2011 (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 228............................  Adhesives and Sealants.            9/30/10             VOC            6.08
Part 235............................  Consumer Products......           10/15/09             VOC           16.73
Part 241............................  Asphalt Paving.........             1/1/11             VOC            2.45
Part 243............................  Clean Air Intrastate                5/6/10             NOX             8.7
                                       Rule (CAIR).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of this analysis, it can be concluded that the adoption
of either the Consumer Products or Adhesives and Sealants provisions
(when compared to the Table 3 shortfall emission reductions) are all
that is needed in VOC reductions to prevent ``backsliding'' under the
1-hour ozone SIP, and the adopted CAIR provisions alone make up the
necessary NOX reductions.\2\ New York has adopted all of
these rules with the respective State effective dates identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On July 6, 2011, EPA issued the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR) to replace the CAIR rule, which was vacated and then
remanded to the EPA in 2008, see http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/. A
December 2008 court decision kept the requirements of CAIR in place
temporarily, but directed EPA to issue a new rule to implement the
CAA requirements concerning the transport of air pollution across
state boundaries. This CSAPR is designed to implement these CAA
requirements and respond to the court's concerns. The CSAPR takes
effect January 1, 2012; CAIR will be implemented through the 2011
compliance periods, and then replaced by the CSAPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New York has demonstrated that the changes to its enhanced I/M
program will meet the performance standard requirements and will
therefore continue to achieve emission reductions necessary to attain
and maintain the NAAQS for all criteria pollutants. EPA proposes to
find that New York has satisfied the section 110(l) of the CAA
demonstration of noninterference.

VI. What are EPA's conclusions?

    EPA's review of the materials submitted indicates that New York has
revised its I/M program in accordance with the requirements of the CAA,
40 CFR part 51 and all of EPA's technical requirements for an
approvable enhanced I/M program. EPA is proposing to approve the
revisions to the Title 6, New York Codes, Rules and Regulations
(NYCRR), Part 217, ``Motor Vehicle Emissions,'' Subparts 217-1, 217-4
and the adoption of new Subpart 217-6, as effective on December 5,
2010,

and the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (NYSDMV) regulation
Title 15 NYCRR Part 79 ``Motor Vehicle Inspection,'' Sections 79.1-
79.15, 79.17, 79.20, 79.21, 79.24, 79.25, as effective on December 29,
2010, which incorporate the State's motor vehicle I/M program
requirements. The CAA gives states the discretion in program planning
to implement programs of the state's choosing as long as necessary
emission reductions are met. EPA is also proposing to approve New
York's performance standard modeling demonstration, which reflects the
State's I/M program as it is currently implemented in the NYMA as well
as throughout New York State.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: September 6, 2011.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2011-23855 Filed 9-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38961-38962]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16995]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1894-211]

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests,
Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments,
Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary Fishway
Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: P-1894-211.
    c. Date filed: June 28, 2018.
    d. Applicant: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G).
    e. Name of Project: Parr Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Broad River, in
Newberry and Fairfield Counties, South Carolina. The project occupies
162.61 acres of federal land administered by the Forest Service.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)--825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. William Argentieri, P.E., Manager of
Civil Engineering, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, 220 Operation
Way, Mail Code A221, Cayce, SC 29033-3701;<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Monte TerHaar at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions, and preliminary prescriptions:
60 days from the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due
105 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions using the
Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-1894-211.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready
for environmental analysis.
    l. Project Description: The project consists of two developments;
the 14.88-Megawatt (MW) Parr Shoals Development and the 511.2-MW
Fairfield Pumped Storage Development.
    The Parr Shoals Development consists of: (1) The 15-mile-long,
4,250-acre Parr Reservoir, at full pond elevation 265.3 feet North
American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88); (2) the 2,690-foot-long Parr
Shoals Dam, which includes a non-overflow section, a spillway section
with 10 spillway gates, and a powerhouse intake section; (3) a
powerhouse integral with the dam, with six generating units; and (4)
transmission facilities that consist of three 950-foot-long, 13.8-
kilovolt lines that extend from the hydro station to the non-project
Parr sub-station.
    The Fairfield Pumped Storage Development consists of: (1) The Parr
Reservoir which serves as the lower pool; (2) the 6,800-acre Monticello

Reservoir (upper reservoir), at normal maximum elevation 424.3 feet
NAVD 88, which is formed by four earthen dams (A, B, C, and D); (3) a
265-foot-long gated intake channel, located between dams B and C; (4)
four 800-foot-long surface penstocks, bifurcating into eight penstocks;
(5) an underground generating station, which houses eight pumped-
turbine units; and (6) transmission facilities that consist of three
7,000-foot-long lines, extending from the Fairfield switch station to
the non-project V.C. Summer switchyard.
    The Fairfield Pumped Storage Development is operated to generate
during peak demand periods. Generation usually occurs during the day,
with the upper reservoir replenished by pumping water at night (non-
peak period). The Parr Shoals Development serves as the lower reservoir
for the pumped storage project. The Parr Shoals Development operates to
maintain a normal maximum elevation of 265.3 feet in Parr Reservoir and
release minimum flows for the protection of aquatic resources.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field, to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to
take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on, or
before, the specified comment date for the particular application.
    All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title
PROTEST, MOTION TO INTERVENE, COMMENTS, REPLY COMMENTS,
RECOMMENDATIONS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS, or PRELIMINARY FISHWAY
PRESCRIPTIONS; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant
and the project number of the application to which the filing responds;
(3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person
protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions, or preliminary prescriptions
must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or
motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the
applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.
    o. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality
certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including
proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request;
or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.
    p. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following revised Hydro Licensing Schedule. Further revisions to
the schedule will be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing comments, recommendations, terms and  September 2019.
 conditions, and preliminary fishway
 prescriptions.
Commission issues EA.......................  February 2020.
Comments on EA due.........................  March 2020.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    q. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    Dated: July 31, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-16995 Filed 8-7-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 250 (Thursday, December 29, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81825-81826]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33369]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0817]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Delaware River, Between
Burlington, NJ and Bristol, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the
Burlington-Bristol (Route 413) Bridge, across the Delaware River, mile
117.8, between the townships of Burlington, NJ and Bristol, PA. The
deviation restricts the operation of the draw span in order to
facilitate the replacement of the lift cables.

DATES: This deviation is effective 7 a.m. December 27, 2011, until 3
p.m. January 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-0817 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov inserting USCG-2011-0817 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Terrance Knowles, Environmental Protection Specialist,
Fifth Coast Guard District, at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Burlington County Bridge Commission, who
owns and operates this vertical lift drawbridge, has requested a
temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in
33 CFR 117.5 and 117.716(b) to facilitate the replacement of the lift
cables.
    The Burlington-Bristol Bridge (Route 413) at mile 117.8, across the
Delaware River, between PA and NJ, has a vertical clearance in the
closed position to vessels of 62 feet above mean high water.
    Under the regular operating schedule the bridge opens on signal as
required by 33 CFR 117.5 and the opening of a bridge may not be delayed
more than five minutes for a highway bridge, after the signal to open
is given as required by 33 CFR 117.716(b).
    Under this temporary deviation, beginning 7 a.m. on Tuesday,
December 27, 2011 and ending at 3 p.m. on Friday, January 20, 2012, the
cable replacement will restrict the operation of the draw span on the
following dates and times: Closed-to-navigation each of the following
days from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.: December 27-29, 2011; January 3-6, 2012;
January 9-13, 2012; and January 16-20, 2012; except vessel openings
will be provided with at least eight hours advance notice given to the
bridge operator at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via marine radio on Channel 13.
    Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may
do so at all times. There are no alternate routes for vessels
transiting this section of the Delaware River.
    There are approximately four to six vessels per week from four
facilities whose vertical clearances exceed the closed bridge position,
requiring an opening of the draw span. The Coast Guard has coordinated
this replacement work with the Mariners Advisory Committee for Bay &
River Delaware, and will inform the other users of the waterway through
our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the closure periods for
the bridge so that

vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the
temporary deviation. The bridge will not be able to open in an
emergency due to the lift cables being removed.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period.
    This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under
33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: December 16, 2011.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-33369 Filed 12-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 208 (Friday, October 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54153-54154]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23387]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84462; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2018-25]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment No. 1, Regarding the Continued Listing and
Trading of Shares of the Natixis Loomis Sayles Short Duration Income
ETF

October 22, 2018.
    On April 16, 2018, 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 to
continue listing and trading shares of the Natixis Loomis Sayles Short
Duration Income ETF under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E, Managed Fund
Shares.\3\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on May 3, 2018.\4\ On June 5, 2018, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ the Commission designated August 1,
2018 as the date by which to approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.\6\ On June 6,
2018, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\7\ On July 27, 2018, the Commission instituted proceedings to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\8\
The Commission has received no comments on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Currently, the Exchange lists and trades the shares pursuant
to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E. As discussed in Amendment No. 1, infra
note 7, the Exchange submitted this proposed rule change to permit
the fund's portfolio to deviate from two of the ``generic'' listing
requirements applicable to Managed Fund Shares.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83122 (April 27,
2018), 83 FR 19578.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83385, 83 FR 27034
(June 11, 2018).
    \7\ Amendment No. 1, which amended and replaced the proposed
rule change in its entirety, is available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2018-25/nysearca201825-3795048-162717.pdf.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83733, 83 FR 37831
(August 2, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \9\ provides that, after initiating
disapproval proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving
or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after
the date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule
change. The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not
more than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer period is
appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination. The
proposed rule change was published for notice and comment in the
Federal Register on May 3, 2018. October 30, 2018 is 180 days from that
date, and December 29, 2018 is 240 days from that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order approving or

disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to
consider this proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ designates December 29, 2018 as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove the proposed rule change
(File No. SR-NYSEArca-2018-25), as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-23387 Filed 10-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P