[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 184 (Friday, September 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58539-58540]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23354]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9005-2]

Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 09/10/2012 Through 09/14/2012
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Starting October 1, 2012, EPA will not
accept paper copies or CDs of EISs for filing purposes; all submissions
on or after October 1, 2012 must be made through e-NEPA.
    While this system eliminates the need to submit paper or CD copies
to EPA to meet filing requirements, electronic submission does not
change requirements for distribution of EISs for public review and
comment. To begin using e-NEPA, you must first register with EPA's
electronic reporting site--https://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp

EIS No. 20120302, Final EIS, HUD, CA, Alice Griffith Redevelopment
Project, Redevelopment of the 4-Arce ``Project Site'' for
1,200 New Dwelling Units, Retail Development, Open Space and Associated
Infrastructure, City and County of San Francisco, CA, Review Period
Ends: 10/22/2012, Contact: Eugene Flannery<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120303, Draft EIS, DOE, TX, W.A. Parish Post-Combustion CO2
Capture and Sequestration Project, Funding, Fort Bend, Wharton, and
Jackson Counties, TX, Comment Period Ends: 11/05/2012, Contact: Mark J.
Matarrese<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120304, Final EIS, USFS, 00, Mountain Pine Beetle Response
Project, Implementing Multiple Resource Management Activities, Black
Hills National Forest, Custer, Fall River, Lawrence, Meade, and
Pennington Counties, SD and Crook and Weston Counties, WY, Review
Period Ends: 10/22/2012, Contact: Katie Van Alstyne<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20110108, Draft EIS, USFS, OR, WITHDRAWAL- Kapka Butte Sno-Park
Project, Proposal to Build a New Sno-Park to Provide more High-
Elevation Parking for Winter Recreationist, Bend-Ft. Rock Ranger
District, Deschutes National Forest, Deschutes County, OR, Comment
Period Ends: 06/30/2011, Contact: Beth Peer<PHONE_NUMBER>. Revision to
FR Notice Published 06/03/2011; Officially Withdrawn by the Preparing
Agency

    Dated: September 19, 2012.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2012-23354 Filed 9-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 167 (Wednesday, September 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49022-49023]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18836]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0315; FRL-8735-01-OCSPP]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal of an
Existing Collection and Request for Comment; Submission of Protocols
and Study Reports for Environmental Research Involving Human Subjects

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
document announces the availability of and solicits public comment on
an Information Collection Request (ICR) that EPA is planning to submit
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR, entitled:
``Submission of Protocols and Study Reports for Environmental Research
Involving Human Subjects'' and identified by EPA ICR No. 2195.06 and
OMB Control No. 2070-0169, represents the renewal of an existing ICR
that is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2022. Before submitting the
ICR to OMB for review and approval under the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection
that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material
are available in the docket for public review and comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 1, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0315, using http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn Siu, Mission Support Division
(7101M), Office of Program Support, Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 34-0159; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)),
EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility.
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

II. What information collection activity or ICR does this action apply
to?

    Title: Submission of Protocols and Study Reports for Environmental
Research Involving Human Subjects.
    ICR number: EPA ICR No. 2195.06.
    OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-0169.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on April 30,
2022. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after
appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR
part 9,

are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other
appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or
form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
responsible for the regulation of pesticides under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The EPA regulations at 40 CFR
part 26 protect subjects of ``third-party'' human research (i.e.,
research that is not conducted or supported by the EPA). In addition to
other protections, the regulations require affected entities to submit
information to EPA and an institutional review board (IRB) prior to
initiating, and to the EPA upon the completion of, certain studies that
involve human research participants. The information collection
activity consists of activity-driven reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for those who intend to conduct research for submission to
EPA under the pesticide laws. If such research involves intentional
exposure of human subjects, these individuals (respondents) are
required to submit study protocols to the EPA and a cognizant local
Human Subjects IRB before such research is initiated so that the
scientific design and ethical standards that will be employed during
the proposed study may be reviewed and approved. Also, respondents are
required to submit information about the ethical conduct of completed
research that involved human subjects when such research is submitted
to the EPA. This renewal ICR estimates the third-party response burden
from complying with the requirements in 40 CFR part 26.
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average
10,242 hours per response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related
materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities
and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this ICR are any entities that submits protocols and study reports for
environmental research involving human subjects under FIFRA and/or
FFDCA.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under 40 CFR part 26.
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 5 annually for
research involving intentional exposure of human subjects and 5
annually for all other submitted research with human subjects.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 10,242 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $ 1,051,0896. This includes an
estimated burden cost of $ 0 for capital investment or maintenance and
operational costs.

III. Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    The estimated respondent burden remains 10,242 hours, which is the
same as that approved by OMB for the existing ICR. The anticipated
number of responses per year is based on the submissions to the Agency
in the recent past and recognition that some of the studies underway
will be submitted prior to the start of the renewal period. The annual
burden per activity is estimated to be 1,446 hours per response for
research involving intentional exposure of human subjects, and 12 hours
per response for all other research with human subjects.
    In addition, OMB has requested that EPA move towards using the 18-
question format for ICR Supporting Statements used by other federal
agencies and departments and that is based on the submission
instructions established by OMB in 1995, replacing the alternate format
developed by EPA and OMB prior to 1995. The Agency does not expect this
change in format to result in substantive changes to the information
collection activities or related estimated burden and costs.

IV. What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to
announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit
additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or
the approval process, please contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2021-18836 Filed 8-31-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18020-18022]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6628]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0027; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-204-AD;
Amendment 39-16642; AD 2011-07-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Sicma Aero Seat 9140, 9166, 9173, 9174,
9184, 9188, 9196, 91B7, 91B8, 91C0, 91C2, 91C4, 91C5, and 9301 Series
Passenger Seat Assemblies; and Sicma Aero Seat 9501311-05, 9501301-06,
9501311-15, 9501301-16, 9501441-30, 9501441-33, 9501311-55, 9501301-56,
9501441-83, 9501441-95, 9501311-97, and 9501301-98 Passenger Seat
Assemblies; Installed on Various Transport Category Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    Cracks have been found on seat backrest links P/N (part number)
90-000200-104-1 and 90-000200-104-2. These cracks can significantly
affect the structural integrity of seat backrests. * * *

    Failure of the backrest links could result in injury to an occupant
during emergency landing conditions. We are issuing this AD to require
actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 6, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 6, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Lee, Aerospace Engineer,
Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2010 (75
FR 1731). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Cracks have been found on seat backrest links P/N (part number)
90-000200-104-1 and 90-000200-104-2. These cracks can significantly
affect the structural integrity of seat backrests. Therefore a life
limit is introduced on the links. On 9g seats also affected by this
problem, stronger unlimited life limits have been developed and
their installation has been rendered mandatory. However, on 16g
seats the affected links have a direct influence on certification
dynamic tests and cannot be replaced by similar stronger links
without performing again all dynamic tests for each seat part
number.

    Failure of the backrest links could result in injury to an occupant
during emergency landing conditions. The required actions include a
general visual inspection for cracking of backrest links, replacement
with new links if cracking is found, and eventual replacement of all
links with new links. You may obtain further information by examining
the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Request To Revise Service Bulletin Reference

    Boeing requested that we update all references to Sicma Aero Seat
Service Bulletin 90-25-012, Issue 4, dated December 19, 2001, to Issue
5, dated March 19, 2004, including Annex 1, Issue 2, dated March 19,
2004. The commenter justified the request by stating that seat series
91C3 (installed on Boeing Model 737 airplanes) was inadvertently
included in Issue 4 of that service bulletin in error, and that Issue 5
of that service bulletin corrects the effectivity by limiting it to
those installed seats that are affected. The commenter also requested
that we revise the ``Relevant Service Information'' section of the NPRM
to refer to Issue 5 of that service bulletin.
    We agree to update the service information in the AD for the reason
given. We have revised paragraphs (c), (f)(1) through (f)(4), and (h)
of this AD to refer to Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90-25-012,
Issue 5, dated March 19, 2004. We also have added Issue 4 of that
service bulletin to paragraph (f)(5) of this AD to give credit for
actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with
Issue 4 of that service bulletin.
    We have not changed the ``Relevant Service Information'' section of
the NPRM because that section does not appear in this final rule.

Request To Remove Series 91C3 Seat From the Applicability

    Boeing requested that we revise the Applicability, paragraph (c) of
the NPRM, to remove seat series 91C3 for the reason stated in the
previous comment.
    We agree to correct the Applicability of the AD because Sicma Aero
Seat Service Bulletin 90-25-012, Issue 5, dated March 19, 2004,
corrects the effectivity, and have removed seat series 91C3 from
paragraph (c) of this AD.

No Reporting Requirement

    We removed paragraph (g)(3) of the NPRM from this final rule
because reporting findings is not required.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these
changes will not increase the economic burden on

any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a Note within the AD.

Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance

    Since issuance of the NPRM, we have increased the labor rate used
in the Costs of Compliance from $80 per work-hour to $85 per work-hour.
The Costs of Compliance information, below, reflects this increase in
the specified hourly labor rate.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 70,073 seats on 163 products
of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take 1 work-hour per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per
product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that
are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no
charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for
affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated
here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the
U.S. operators to be $5,956,205, or $85 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2011-07-05 Sicma Aero Seat: Amendment 39-16642. Docket No. FAA-2010-
0027; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-204-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective May 6,
2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Sicma Aero Seats 9140, 9166, 9173, 9174,
9184, 9188, 9196, 91B7, 91B8, 91C0, 91C2, 91C4, 91C5, and 9301
series passenger seat assemblies; and Sicma Aero Seats 9501311-05,
9501301-06, 9501311-15, 9501301-16, 9501441-30, 9501441-33, 9501311-
55, 9501301-56, 9501441-83, 9501441-95, 9501311-97, and 9501301-98
passenger seat assemblies; identified in Annex 1, Issue 2, dated
March 19, 2004, of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90-25-012, Issue
5, dated March 19, 2004; that have backrest links part numbers (P/
Ns) 90-000200-104-1 and 90-000200-104-2; and that are installed on,
but not limited to, the airplanes identified in Table 1 of this AD,
certificated in any category.

                    Table 1--Certain Affected Models
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Manufacturer                            Model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airbus...........................  A330-200 and -300 Series Airplanes.
Airbus...........................  A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 Series
                                    Airplanes.
The Boeing Company...............  777-200, -300, -300ER, and -200LR
                                    Series Airplanes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note 1:  This AD applies to Sicma Aero Seat passenger seat
assemblies as installed on any airplane, regardless of whether the
airplane has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the
area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have
been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the
requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance according to
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. The request should include an
assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair
on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe
condition has not been eliminated, the request should include
specific proposed actions to address it.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25:
Equipment/Furnishings.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Cracks have been found on seat backrest links P/N (part numbers)
90-000200-104-1 and 90-000200-104-2. These cracks can significantly
affect the structural integrity of seat backrests. Therefore a life
limit is introduced on the links. On 9g seats also affected by this
problem, stronger unlimited life limits have been developed and
their installation has been rendered mandatory.

However, on 16g seats the affected links have a direct influence on
certification dynamic tests and cannot be replaced by similar
stronger links without performing again all dynamic tests for each
seat part number.
    Failure of the backrest links could result in injury to an
occupant during emergency landing conditions. The required actions
include a general visual inspection for cracking of backrest links,
replacement with new links if cracking is found, and eventual
replacement of all links with new links.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i)
and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, do a general visual inspection for
cracking of the backrest links, P/Ns 90-000200-104-1 and 90-000200-
104-2, in accordance with Part One, ``Checking Procedure,'' of Sicma
Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90-25-012, Issue 5, dated March 19, 2004.
    (i) Before 6,000 flight hours on the backrest link since new.
    (ii) Within 900 flight hours or 5 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (2) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of
this AD, cracking is found between the side of the backrest link and
the lock-out pin hole but the cracking does not pass this lock-out
pin hole (refer to Figure 2 of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90-
25-012, Issue 5, dated March 19, 2004): Within 600 flight hours or 3
months after doing the inspection, whichever occurs first, replace
both backrest links of the affected seat with new backrest links
having the same part number (P/N 90-000200-104-1 or 90-000200-104-
2), in accordance with Part Two, ``Replacement Procedure,'' of Sicma
Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90-25-012, Issue 5, dated March 19, 2004.
    (3) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of
this AD, cracking is found that passes beyond the lock-out pin hole
(refer to Figure 2 of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90-25-012,
Issue 5, dated March 19, 2004): Before further flight, replace both
backrest links of the affected seat with new backrest links having
the same part numbers (P/N 90-000200-104-1 or 90-000200-104-2), in
accordance with Part Two, ``Replacement Procedure,'' of Sicma Aero
Seat Service Bulletin 90-25-012, Issue 5, dated March 19, 2004.
    (4) If no cracking is found during the inspection required by
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD: At the later of the times specified in
paragraphs (f)(4)(i) and (f)(4)(ii) of this AD, replace the links,
P/Ns 90-000200-104-1 and 90-000200-104-2, with new backrest links
having the same part numbers (P/N 90-000200-104-1 or 90-000200-104-
2), in accordance with Part Two, ``Replacement Procedure,'' of Sicma
Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90-25-012, Issue 5, dated March 19, 2004.
    (i) Before 12,000 flight hours on the backrest links, P/Ns 90-
000200-104-1 and 90-000200-104-2, since new.
    (ii) Within 900 flight hours or 5 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (5) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90-25-012, Issue 3,
dated October 3, 2001; and Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90-25-
012, Issue 4, dated December 19, 2001; are acceptable for compliance
with the corresponding actions of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: The MCAI specifies doing repetitive
inspections for cracking of links having over 12,000 flight hours
since new until the replacement of the link is done. This AD does
not include those repetitive inspections because we have reduced the
required time for replacing those links. This AD requires
replacement of the link before 12,000 flight hours since new, or
within 900 flight hours or 5 months after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 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 ACO,
send it to ATTN: Jeffrey Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone (781) 238-
7161; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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. The AMOC approval letter
must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI French Airworthiness Directive 2001-605(AB),
dated December 12, 2001; and Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90-25-
012, Issue 5, dated March 19, 2004; for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90-25-012,
Issue 5, dated March 19, 2004, including Annex 1, Issue 2, dated
March 19, 2004, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Sicma
Aero Seat, 7, Rue Lucien Coupet, 36100 ISSOUDUN, France; telephone
+33 (0) 2 54 03 39 39; fax +33 (0) 2 54 03 39 00; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.sicma.zodiac.com/en/.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 14, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-6628 Filed 3-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 93 (Monday, May 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 28375]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11574]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IS12-214-000]

Dixie Pipeline Company LLC; Notice of Technical Conference

    Take notice that the Commission will convene a technical conference
on Wednesday, May 30, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. (EDT), in a room to be
designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE., Washington DC 20426.
    The technical conference is being held pursuant to the Commission's
April 27, 2012 order addressing Dixie's FERC Tariff No. 6.1.0.\1\ The
technical conference will address the issues raised by the protesters
in the proceeding and the issues discussed by the Commission in P 19 of
the April 27, 2012 order concerning the effect of Dixie's proposed new
butane/isobutane service on its overall system operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Dixie Pipeline Company LLC, 139 FERC ]61,073 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    All interested persons are permitted to attend. For further
information please contact David Faerberg at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 7, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-11574 Filed 5-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 87837]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27833]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1016]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Extended
Operations (ETOPS) of Multi-Engine Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on April 24, 2023. The collection involves practices that
permitted certificated air carriers to operate two-engine airplanes
over long range routes. The FAA uses this information collection to
ensure that aircraft for long range flights are equipped to minimize
diversions, to preclude and prevent diversions in remote areas, and to
ensure that all personnel are trained to minimize any adverse impacts
of a diversion.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by January 18, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra L. Ray by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0718.
    Title: Extended Operations (ETOPS) of Multi-Engine Airplanes.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on April 24, 2023 (88 FR 24842). The final rule codified
the previous practices that permitted certificated air carriers to
operate two-engine airplanes over these long-range routes and extended
the procedures for extended operations to all passenger-carrying
operations on routes beyond 180 minutes from an alternate airport. This
option is voluntary for operators and manufacturers. The FAA uses this
information collection to ensure that aircraft for long range flights
are equipped to minimize diversions, to preclude and prevent diversions
in remote areas, and to ensure that all personnel are trained to
minimize any adverse impacts of a diversion.
    Respondents: Approximately 22 Operators and 4 Manufacturers and 6
Future Operators.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Burden varies per operator.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 36,214 Hours.

    Issued in Washington DC on December 14, 2023.
Sandra L. Ray,
Aviation Safety Inspector, AFS-260.
[FR Doc. 2023-27833 Filed 12-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 236 (Wednesday, December 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76475-76476]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31044]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9939-84-OW]

Notice of Open Meeting of the Environmental Financial Advisory
Board

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA's Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB) will
hold a public meeting on January 12-13, 2016. EFAB is an EPA advisory
committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to provide
advice and recommendations to EPA on creative approaches to funding
environmental programs, projects, and activities.
    The purpose of this meeting is to hear from informed speakers on
environmental finance issues, proposed legislation, and EPA priorities;
to discuss activities, progress, and preliminary recommendations with
regard current EFAB work projects; and to consider requests for
assistance from EPA offices. Environmental finance discussions and
presentations are expected on, but not limited to, the following
topics: Financing operations and maintenance costs at green
infrastructure sites; financing stormwater and green infrastructure
programs; public-private partnerships for water infrastructure
projects; financing pre-development activities in communities;
affordability challenges in the water sector; and financial capacity
development for small drinking/wastewater systems. The meeting is open
to the public; however, seating is limited. All members of the public
who

wish to attend the meeting must register, in advance, no later than
Monday, December 28, 2015. Registration is required for all members of
the public to ensure an expeditious security process.

DATES: The full board meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 12, 2016
from 1:00 p.m. to 5 p.m., EST and Wednesday, January 13, 2015 from 9:00
a.m. to 5 p.m., EST.

ADDRESSES: Hamilton Crowne Plaza Hotel, 1001 14th St. NW., Washington,
DC 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on access or services
for individuals with disabilities, or to request accommodations for a
person with a disability, please contact Sandra Williams at (202) 564-
4999 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at least 10 days prior to the meeting,
to allow as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: December 2, 2015.
Andrew D. Sawyers,
Director, Office of Wastewater Management, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 2015-31044 Filed 12-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 16 (Friday, January 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4167-4168]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01390]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0284]

Pediatric Studies of Sodium Nitroprusside Conducted in Accordance
With the Public Health Service Act; Availability of Summary Report and
Requested Labeling Changes

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a summary
report of the pediatric studies of sodium nitroprusside conducted in
accordance with the Public Health Service Act (the PHS Act) and is
making available requested labeling changes for sodium nitroprusside.
The Agency is making this information available consistent with the PHS
Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori Gorski, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, rm. 6415, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-2200, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Sodium Nitroprusside Summary Review

    In the Federal Register of January 21, 2003 (68 FR 2789), sodium
nitroprusside (SNP) was identified as a drug that needed further study
in pediatrics. The approved labeling lacked adequate information on
dosing, pharmacokinetics, tolerability, and safety information in
pediatric patients from birth to 18 years of age who receive SNP for
controlled reduction of blood pressure.
    A written request (WR) for pediatric studies of sodium
nitroprusside was issued on July 8, 2002, to Abbott Laboratories, the
holder of the new drug application for sodium nitroprusside. FDA did
not receive a response to the written request. Accordingly, the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued a request for proposals to
conduct the pediatric studies described in the written request in July
2004 and awarded funds to Duke University and Stanford University in
September 2004 to complete the studies described in the written
request.
    The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development (NICHD) submitted clinical study reports for SNP. The
two studies are:
     NICHD-2003-09-DR-SNP1: A randomized double-blind, parallel
group, dose-ranging, effect-controlled, multicenter study of
intravenous infusions of SNP in pediatric patients who require
deliberate, controlled relative-induced hypotension for at least 2
hours.
     NICHD-2003-09-LT-SNP2: A multicenter, randomized, double-
blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study to determine the
pharmacodynamics of sodium nitroprusside during the prolonged infusion
in pediatric subjects. This study was a withdrawal to placebo study.
    Upon completion of these pediatric studies, a report of the
pediatric studies of sodium nitroprusside was submitted to NIH and FDA.
In the Federal Register of October 3, 2012 (77 FR 60441), FDA announced
the opening on August 31, 2012, of docket FDA-2012-N-0284 for
submission of data from pediatric studies of sodium nitroprusside. The
data submitted to the docket were submitted in accordance with section
409I of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 284m) and were the same data submitted
to investigational new drug application 71,979, with the exception that
personal privacy information had been redacted from the data submitted
to the docket.
    The sodium nitroprusside docket remained opened for public comment
from October 3, 2012, through November 2, 2012. There were no comments
submitted to the docket during that time, and a memorandum for the
record stating such was posted to the docket on November 5, 2012.
    During the review of the submission, the Division of Cardiovascular
and Renal Products identified inconsistencies in subject numbers
between the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) analysis set and
the ITT-E (intent to treat-efficacy) population in the study report
NICHD-2003-09-DR-SNP1 and notified NIH. In a meeting with FDA on
November 29, 2012, NIH indicated that that they identified treatment
assignment inconsistencies between the two datasets and provided a
strategy for addressing the concern and performing reanalysis. The need
for reanalysis resulted in suspension of the review as of November 29,
2012. The corrected datasets and reanalysis were provided to the Agency
and submitted to the docket on September 26, 2013.
    The key findings of this submission are:
     The blood pressure lowering effect of SNP was demonstrated
in both of the trials.

     A higher proportion of patients in the high-dose group
achieved target mean arterial pressure (MAP) compared to the lowest
dose of 0.3 microgram/kilogram/minute ([micro]g/kg/min). The time-to-
target MAP was also significantly shorter for the high-dose groups.
     With a starting dose of 0.3 [micro]g/kg/min, ~25 percent
of patients achieved target MAP in 5 minutes. Maintaining on a stable
dose of 0.3 [micro]g/kg/min for 10 minutes resulted in ~50 percent of
patients reaching target MAP. Hence, a starting dose of 0.3 [micro]g/
kg/min is reasonable. It should also be noted that it may be prudent to
maintain the infusion rate for an additional 5 to 10 minutes before
titrating.
     The proportion of patients with MAP reductions of >20
percent below target increased in a dose-dependent manner.
     The safety profile of SNP in both the trials was largely
consistent with the expected events as a result of the underlying
disease and preoperative setting. Only blood pressure reduction events
were clearly drug- and dose-related.
     Even though only four neonates were studied in the trial,
there is no expectation that the PK/PD relationship and the safety
profile would be any different in this age group.
     The FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) search (up
to October 25, 2012) retrieved only 26 pediatric cases with SNP use. Of
these, four cases of elevated carboxyhemoglobin associated with SNP
treatment were reported. The Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology
review outlines several reasons why these data cannot be used to
calculate incidence of adverse events in the population.
     For this submission, one large site (N = 36 enrolled in
Protocol NICHD-2003-09-LT-SNP2; Investigator: Dr. David Rosen) was
inspected. The Office of Scientific Investigations recommends the data
be accepted.
     As a part of the WR, long-term safety data and a 1-year
followup period for patients enrolled in the trial were sought.
Information from followup was not available in the submission. However,
the value of such information is limited and is not expected to have an
impact on the ability to overcome the labeling gap. The complete report
can be found at docket number FDA-2012-N-0284.

II. Recommendation

    The submission provides a reasonable algorithm for administration
of sodium nitroprusside to allow its use in perioperative settings to
achieve controlled hypotension for pediatric patients from birth to 18
years. FDA's requested labeling changes are available on the FDA Web
site at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/ucm379088.htm and in the docket (Ref. 1).

III. Reference

    The following reference has been placed on display in the Division
of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and may be seen by
interested person between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and
is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov.
    1. FDA Requested Labeling Changes.

    Dated: January 10, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-01390 Filed 1-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 105 (Thursday, June 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29820-29823]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11613]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92057; File No. SR-CBOE-2021-034]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 3.54 and Rule 3.10

May 27, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 20, 2021, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend Rule 3.54 and Rule 3.10. The text of the proposed rule change
is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 3.54 in connection with a
Designated Primary Market-Maker (``DPM'') Designee.
    Pursuant to Rule 3.54(a), a DPM may act as a DPM solely through its
DPM Designees. A ``DPM Designee'' is an individual who is approved by
the Exchange to represent a DPM in its capacity as a DPM. An individual
must satisfy various requirements, which are included in Rule 3.54(b),
in order to be a DPM Designee of a DPM. Specifically, current Rule
3.54(b)(2) provides that, as one of the requirements, the individual
must be a Responsible Person of the DPM. Additionally, pursuant to
current Rule 3.9(a), each Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') organization
that is the holder of a Trading Permit that provides electronic access
to the Exchange must designate at least one individual as the
Responsible Person for that TPH organization. The Exchange notes that
Off-Floor DPMs, which is a DPM authorized to function remotely away
from the Exchange's trading floor,\5\ must hold Trading Permits that
provide electronic access to the Exchange. Rule 3.9(a) provides that a
Responsible Person must represent the TPH organization with respect to
a TPH organization's electronic Trading Permit(s) in all matters
relating to the Exchange, and must be a U.S.-based officer, director or
management-level employee of the TPH organization, who is responsible
for the direct supervision and control of Associated Persons of that
TPH organization. Rule 3.9(b) provides that each TPH organization must
designate an individual nominee to represent the organization with
respect to each Floor Broker Trading Permit or Market-Maker Floor
Trading Permit in all matters relating to the Exchange. Thus, an On-
Floor DPM, which operates on the Exchange's trading floor,\6\ is
required to have a nominee for its Market-Maker Floor Trading Permit.
Rule 3.9(b) provides, among other things, that each nominee of a TPH
organization is required to be registered as a Market-Maker if holding
a Market-Making Trading Permit, have authorized trading functions, and
perform Exchange-approved trading functions only on behalf of one TPH
organization. As a result, a nominee is required to be materially
involved in the daily operation of the Exchange business activities of
the TPH organization for which the person is a nominee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 1.1, Definition of ``Designated Primary Market-
Maker and DPM''.
    \6\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 3.10(a) requires, among other things, any individual
designated to act as a Responsible Person or nominee desiring to act in
one or more of the trading functions authorized by the Rules of the
Exchange (``Rules'', and individually, ``Rule'') to submit an
application to the TPH Department in a form and manner prescribed by
the Exchange. Additionally, Rule 3.10(d) provides that the TPH
Department shall investigate, among other applicants, each applicant
applying to be a Responsible Person or nominee (with the exception of
any associated person applicant that is a current Trading Permit
Holder, Responsible Person or nominee, any applicant that was a Trading
Permit Holder, Responsible Person or nominee within 9 months prior to
the date of receipt of that applicant's application by the TPH
Department, and any Trading Permit Holder, Responsible Person, nominee
or associated person applicant that was

investigated by the TPH Department within 9 months prior to the date of
receipt of that applicant's application by the TPH Department).
    The Exchange previously restructured its Trading Permits and Rules
regarding Trading Permits in connection with a 2019 technology
migration.\7\ Prior to this restructuring and the above-described Rules
in their current form, all TPH organizations (both electronic and
floor-based) were required to designate an individual nominee to
represent the organization with respect to that Trading Permit in all
matters relating to the Exchange and a nominee could represent either
an electronic or floor-based DPM as a DPM Designee. Now, only floor-
based TPHs are required to designate a nominee while TPHs that hold a
Trading Permit that provides electronic access to the Exchange
(including those designated as Off-Floor DPMs only) are required to
designate a Responsible Person. Upon the migration-related
restructuring of its Rules, the Exchange intended to require a
designation of a nominee only for floor-based Trading Permits and that
TPH organizations holding electronic permits would be required to
designate a Responsible Person and, as such, intended to reference
``Responsible Person'', where appropriate in the Rules, alongside
references to ``nominees''.\8\ In the filing that revised the Rule
governing DPM Designees for the migration,\9\ the Exchange
inadvertently removed the reference to nominee in the Rule governing
DPM Designees, and the Rule now, unintentionally, provides that a DPM
Designee must be a Responsible Person of the DPM, without regard to
whether the DPM is an On-Floor or Off-Floor DPM. This poses an
unnecessary regulatory burden for On-Floor DPMs, who would not
otherwise be required to designate a Responsible Person as a DPM
Designee if not for the inadvertent deletion of the reference to
``nominee'' in Rule 3.54. Therefore, the proposed rule change amends
the DPM Designee requirements in proposed Rules 3.54(b)(1) and (2) to
be clear that, for an Off-Floor DPM, at least one individual must be a
Responsible Person of the DPM, and, for an On-Floor DPM, the individual
must be a nominee of the DPM or an affiliate of the DPM, as was the
requirement for an On-Floor DPM up until the fourth quarter of 2019
when the Exchange inadvertently removed the reference to nominees in
Rule 3.54(b). The proposed rule change also eliminates the DPM Designee
requirement in current Rule 3.54(b)(1) that an individual must be
approved to be a Trading Permit Holder. A Responsible Person is not
required to be approved as a Trading Permit Holder and the Exchange did
not intend upon the migration-related restructuring of its Rules for a
Responsible Person that is a DPM Designee to otherwise be approved as a
Trading Permit Holder. Nominees are already (and will continue to be)
required to approved as Trading Permit Holders pursuant to Rule
3.9(b)(5). As a result, the Exchange believes that the elimination of
this provision will mitigate any potential confusion regarding DPM
Designee requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87377 (October 21,
2019), 84 FR 57500 (October 25, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-099).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87024 (September 19,
2019), 84 FR 50545 (September 25, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-059), which
provided that, upon migration, a ``DPM, like all member
organizations, will continue to be required to maintain at least one
nominee (or Responsible Person) and may choose to maintain multiple
nominees (or Responsible Persons)'', and that the Exchange ``will
require a designation of a nominee only for floor-based Trading
Permits. TPH organizations that hold electronic permits will be
required to designate a ``Responsible Person'', who must be
affiliated with the TPH''.
    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, as described above, a Responsible Person must be a
U.S.-based officer, director or management-level employee of the TPH
organization, who is responsible for the direct supervision and control
of Associated Persons of that TPH organization. Unlike a nominee, a
Responsible Person is not required to have authorized trading functions
on behalf of the DPM. A Responsible Person at the executive or
managerial level might not be involved in the day-to-day trading
activities of the DPM. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to update Rule
3.54(b)(1) so that an Off-Floor DPM may also designate individuals as
DPM Designees that are involved in the performance of trading functions
on behalf of the DPM, much like that of a nominee for an On-Floor DPM,
as proposed. Specifically, the proposed rule change provides that, if
at least one individual satisfies the Responsible Person requirement,
then an Off-Floor DPM may designate additional individuals as DPM
Designees that are not required to be Responsible Persons but must be
involved in the day-to-day trading of the DPM's appointed classes and
otherwise satisfy the DPM Designee requirements (in subparagraphs
(b)(2) through (5)). As a result, an Off-Floor DPM will still be
required to have a Responsible Person DPM Designee but will also be
able to identify an additional DPM Designee that is more intimately
involved in the actual daily trading in the DPM's appointed classes,
which is more aligned with the role of a nominee of an On-Floor DPM.
    Lastly, the proposed rule change amends Rules 3.10(a) and (d) to
include the term DPM Designees among the list of individuals required
to apply to the TPH Department of the Exchange and among the list of
individual applicants that the TPH Department must investigate pursuant
to the application process. The proposed rule change ensures that the
Off-Floor DPM Designees that are not necessarily required to be
Responsible Persons, as proposed, must still go through the Exchange's
application process.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\10\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \11\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \12\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and national market
system because it removes an unnecessary (and inadvertent) regulatory
burden for On-Floor DPMs that are required, by nature of their on-floor
Market-Maker position, to have a nominee pursuant to Rule 3.9 but do
not hold Trading Permits that provide electronic access to the Exchange
and are therefore not automatically required to designate a Responsible
Person pursuant to Rule 3.9. As such, the proposed rule change allows
an On-Floor DPM to designate a nominee as a DPM Designee, for which
each On-Floor DPM must already have

in place to represent its Market-Maker Floor Trading Permit(s), instead
of having to take additional steps to identify and designate a
Responsible Person just to qualify as a DPM Designee. The proposed rule
change also reduces any potential confusion for investors by
eliminating an unnecessary and redundant provision that DPM Designees
must be approved as Trading Permit Holders, as this is not a
requirement for Responsible Persons (nor did the Exchange otherwise
intended to be a requirement for Off-Floor DPM Designees) and is
already, and will continue to be, a requirement for all nominees
pursuant to the Rule governing nominee requirements. The Exchange
believes that nominees and Responsible Persons are qualified, pursuant
to the Rules, to respectively represent an On-Floor DPM or Off Floor
DPM. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
does not raise any new or novel issues nor affect the protection of
investors because the Rules in effect prior the fourth quarter of 2019
provided that DPM Designees were required to be nominees, and TPH
organizations with Floor Trading Permits Trading are still required to
designate nominees pursuant to Rule 3.9.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change removes
impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and
national market system because it allows for an Off-Floor DPM to
designate as a DPM Designee an individual who is more intimately
involved in the daily trading functions and performance of the DPM in
its appointed classes, while also still having a DPM Designee that is a
Responsible Person. Although a Responsible Person is qualified to
represent the DPM in all Exchange matters, given the more managerial
and supervisory level requirements to be a Responsible Person, such an
individual might not operate day-to-day trading functions in a DPM's
appointed classes. As such, an Off-Floor DPM will be able to have a DPM
Designee that is more materially involved in the daily trading
operation of the DPM and have authorized trading functions and perform
those functions on behalf of the DPM. The Exchange believes this will
provide additional assurance that a DPM may meets its quoting
requirements and other Market-Maker obligations in its appointed
classes and better align the level of operational responsibility
required for an Off-Floor DPM Designee with that of an On-Floor DPM
Designee, as proposed. For this reason, too, the Exchange also believes
that proposed rule change furthers the objectives of Section 6(c)(3) of
the Act,\13\ which authorizes the Exchange to, among other things,
prescribe standards of financial responsibility or operational
capability and standards of training, experience and competence for its
Trading Permit Holders and person associated with Trading Permit
Holders. The proposed rule change also ensures that every individual
designated to represent a DPM pursuant to the Rules must continue to go
through the Exchange's application and investigation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change
requiring a DPM Designee to be a nominee applies equally to all On-
Floor DPMs equally, and the proposed rule change allowing an Off-Floor
DPM to have additional DPM Designees required to be involved in the
day-to-day operation of the DPM in its appointed classes applies
equally to all Off-Floor DPMs.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
proposed rule change only affects DPMs of the Exchange and the
requirements and process regarding their designees. The proposed rule
change is not intended to address any competitive issues, but rather to
more appropriately align the requirements for individuals acting on
behalf of DPMs with respect to their activity on the Exchange.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \14\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2021-034 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-CBOE-2021-034. 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
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change. 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-
CBOE-2021-034 and should be submitted on or before June 24, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-11613 Filed 6-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 22, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72120-72124]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29901]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 112

[EPA-HQ-OPA-2011-0838; FRL-9494-8]
RIN 2050-AG69

Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule--Compliance Date Amendment for Farms

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA (or the Agency) is taking final action to amend the date
by which farms must prepare or amend, and implement their Spill
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plans to May 10, 2013. The date
is being amended because a large segment of the continental U.S. was
affected by flooding during the spring and summer of 2011, and other
areas were impacted by devastating fires and drought conditions. In
addition, despite the targeted farm outreach efforts by EPA over the
past ten months, the sheer number of farms throughout the U.S. makes it
a challenge to reach those owners and operators of farms that may be
subject to the SPCC Plan regulations. As a result, the Agency believes
that farms need additional time to come into compliance with the
requirements to prepare or amend and implement a SPCC Plan.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 22, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OPA-2011-0838. All documents in the docket are listed on the
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (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
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the RCRA Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP and Oil Information Center at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or TDD<PHONE_NUMBER> (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC
metropolitan area, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or TDD<PHONE_NUMBER>. For more
detailed information on specific aspects of this final rule, contact
either Lynn Beasley at<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Mark W.
Howard at<PHONE_NUMBER> (howard.markw@epa.gov), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0002, Mail Code 5104A.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this action apply to me?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Industry sector                        NAICS code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farms...................................................        111, 112
Government..............................................              92
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

II. What does this amendment do?

    This action amends the date by which farms as defined in section
112.2 must prepare or amend, and implement their SPCC Plan to May 10,
2013. A farm is defined in this section as a facility on a tract of
land devoted to the production of crops or raising of animals,
including fish, which produced and sold, or normally would have
produced and sold, $1,000 or more of agricultural products during a
year.
    On June 19, 2009 (74 FR 29136), EPA issued a final rule in the
Federal Register that amended the dates by which facilities must
prepare or amend their SPCC Plans, and implement those Plans to
November 10, 2010. On October 14, 2010 (75 FR 63093), EPA issued a
final rule in the Federal Register with a new compliance date of
November 10, 2011, by which certain facilities must prepare or amend,
and implement their SPCC Plans, providing an additional year for the
remaining facilities. On October 18, 2011, EPA issued a direct final
rule (76 FR 64245) and a concurrent proposed rule (76 FR 64296), in the
Federal Register that amended the dates by which farms must prepare or
amend their SPCC Plans, and implement those Plans to May 10, 2013.
    Prior to the close of the public comment period for the concurrent
proposed rule, the Agency received written adverse comments concerning
the amended compliance dates. This final rule supersedes any and all
prior published rules, including the direct final rule, in extending
the compliance date to May 10, 2013 for the owners or operators of
farms as defined in 40 CFR 112.2. We have addressed the public comments
in the Response to Comment section of this preamble. This action
further extends the compliance date to May 10, 2013 for the owners or
operators of farms as defined in 40 CFR 112.2. The Agency recognizes
that the owners or operators of some facilities excluded from the
extension of the compliance date may still require additional time to
amend or prepare their SPCC Plans as a result of either non-
availability of qualified personnel,

or delays in construction or equipment delivery beyond the control and
without the fault of the owner or operator. If so, the owner or
operator of the facility may submit a written request for additional
time to amend or prepare a SPCC Plan to the Regional Administrator in
accordance with Sec.  112.3(f).
    Under 40 CFR 112.3(f) the Regional Administrator may authorize an
extension of time for the preparation and full implementation of a SPCC
Plan, or any amendment thereto, beyond the time permitted for the
preparation, implementation, or amendment of a SPCC Plan under this
part, when he finds that the owner or operator of a facility subject to
this section, cannot fully comply with the requirements as a result of
either non-availability of qualified personnel, or delays in
construction or equipment delivery beyond the control and without the
fault of such owner or operator or his agents or employees. If you are
an owner or operator seeking an extension of time, you may submit a
written extension request to the Regional Administrator. Your request
must include a:
    (i) Full explanation of the cause for any such delay and the
specific aspects of the Plan affected by the delay;
    (ii) Full discussion of actions being taken or contemplated to
minimize or mitigate such delay; and
    (iii) Proposed time schedule for the implementation of any
corrective actions being taken or contemplated, including interim dates
for completion of tests or studies, installation and operation of any
necessary equipment, or other preventive measures. In addition you may
present additional oral or written statements in support of your
extension request.
    The submission of a written extension request does not relieve you
of your obligation to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR part 112.
The Regional Administrator may request a copy of your Plan to evaluate
the extension request. When the Regional Administrator authorizes an
extension of time for particular equipment or other specific aspects of
the SPCC Plan, such extension does not affect your obligation to comply
with the requirements related to other equipment or other specific
aspects of the SPCC Plan for which the Regional Administrator has not
expressly authorized an extension.
    This action is not the vehicle for other extensions. EPA is not
extending the compliance date for any other facilities as other
facilities are not season-dependent and are less likely to be impacted
by severe weather conditions. Additionally, other facilities retain the
alternative mechanism for requesting an extension to the compliance
date through 40 CFR 112.3(f).

III. What was the basis for extending the SPCC compliance date for
farms?

    A large segment of the continental U.S. was affected by flooding
during the spring and summer of 2011. Other areas were impacted by
devastating fires and drought conditions. In fact, many counties in
several states were declared disaster areas by either the federal or
their state government or both. EPA has received a number of letters
and other correspondence, from State Agricultural Departments and other
parties, explaining the impact of these recent floods on the owners and
operators of farms and their ability to comply with the SPCC rule.
These owners and operators have experienced interruptions in planting,
cultivation and harvesting due to these floods. According to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2011, the Agency issued
56 Major Disaster/Emergency Declarations specifically associated with
flooding events.
    According to FEMA's 2011 data, approximately two thirds of the
fifty states had a FEMA flooding Major Disaster/Emergency Declarations.
Almost a quarter of the fifty states had multiple FEMA declarations due
to flooding. These declarations are widespread throughout the crop
production areas of the country. The Agency was also advised in the
correspondence that there may be a lack of available qualified
Professional Engineers (PEs) in some areas of the country to assist in
the preparation, implementation, and review of SPCC Plans for farms.
    In addition, despite the targeted farm outreach efforts by EPA over
the past ten months, the sheer number of farms throughout the U.S.
makes it a challenge to reach those owners and operators of farms that
may be subject to the SPCC Plan regulations. As a result, the Agency
believes that farms, as defined in section 112.2, need additional time
to come into compliance with the requirements to prepare or amend and
implement a SPCC Plan. While the Agency could require farms to request
an extension pursuant to 40 CFR 112.3(f), as described above, the
Agency believes that unless the Agency extends the compliance date for
farms, we will receive an overwhelming number of requests for
individual extensions. The Agency believes that this would be an
inefficient use of scarce Agency resources to address this problem by
processing a great number of individual extension requests.
    Thus, the Agency has decided to extend the compliance date by which
owners or operators of a farm must prepare or amend and implement a
SPCC Plans to May 10, 2013. The additional 18 months allows enough time
for farms to come in compliance with this regulation. The owners and
operators of farms are strongly encouraged not to delay, and to take
advantage of the off-season for planting and growing, in preparing
their SPCC Plans. However, any farm owner or operator who is not able
to come into compliance by May 10, 2013, and wishes to seek a further
extension of the compliance date, should submit a written request to
the Regional Administrator of the EPA Regional Office for the state
where the farm is located in accordance with paragraph (f) of 40 CFR
112.3.
    Finally, we would note that the amendment to the compliance date
does not remove the regulatory requirement for owners or operators of
farms in operation before August 16, 2002, to have and to maintain and
continue implementing a SPCC Plan in accordance with the SPCC
regulations then in effect. Such owners and operators continue to be
required to maintain their SPCC Plans during the interim until the
applicable compliance date for amending and implementing the amended
SPCC Plans. In addition, the amendment of the compliance date does not
relieve owners or operators of farms from the potential liability under
the Clean Water Act or other environmental statutes or regulations for
any spills (see 40 CFR part 110) that may occur.

IV. Response to Comments

    The Agency received four comments. All of the comments were adverse
in nature. A response to comment document can be found in the Agency's
docket for this rule (EPA-HQ-OPA-2011-0838).
    Comments: Comments received on the direct final rule with a
concurrent proposed rule either disagreed with providing any extension
or in one case the length of time (18 months) for the extension,
suggesting instead a shorter extension. The commenters that expressly
requested that the 18 month extension for farms not be granted cited
one or more of the following concerns: (1) That repeated extensions
(eight times) of compliance dates removes the urgency for farms to ``do
the right thing'' from an environmental perspective or otherwise put
off their SPCC obligations; (2) interferes with the (commenters')
ability to communicate to potential clients (farmers) the need to

come into compliance soon; (3) there are many companies ready to assist
farmers with their SPCC Plans; and (4) there are millions of dollars in
grants available to farmers to help them come into compliance with the
SPCC regulations. Two of the commenters suggested that greater outreach
to farms regarding the SPCC Plan requirements is needed instead of the
extension.
    One commenter agreed that an extension is necessary but does not
agree with the time frame of 18 months. The commenter stated that a
vast majority of farming clients have indicated that they are out of
harvest and feel confident that they can finalize their SPCC Plans
during the winter months. Therefore, a three to four month extension
coupled with a concerted effort to inform farmers of their regulatory
responsibilities would be of far greater benefit to the farming
community. The commenter cited three primary concerns of the proposed
extension: (1) It jeopardizes the resources that are currently
available to help producers gain compliance; (2) there are solutions
and professionals available including a ``free of charge'' online SPCC
Plan creation tool, even though most farms do not need a professional
engineer (PE) to certify their SPCC Plan and are able to prepare a
self-certified SPCC Plan; and (3) a concerted effort must be made to
inform and educate farmers about the SPCC rule and their
responsibilities. One commenter cited a potential loss of jobs
associated with the action and the inequity of EPA's enforcement of the
SPCC regulation on farmers as compared to other sectors, such as the
oil and gas sector.
    Response: While we recognize that there have been multiple
extensions to the compliance date under 40 CFR 112.3--Requirement to
prepare and implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
Plan, at this time, we are further extending the date for compliance
for a narrow segment of industries that are covered by this regulation;
i.e., farms.
    The Agency considered comments that opposed any extension to the
compliance date and the comment that recognized a compliance date
extension was appropriate, but suggested a shorter compliance date, as
well as letters from the Secretary of Agriculture, Arkansas Agriculture
Department, the Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of
Agriculture and Commerce and the Commissioner of the Louisiana
Department of Agriculture previously received by the Agency, that
specifically requested an additional 24 months for farms to implement
SPCC Plans and recover financially from the impacts of extreme weather,
find qualified engineers, and install the proper equipment. The Agency
proposed an 18 month extension determining that 24 months may be too
long a period and decided 18 months should be adequate time for the
farms. We still believe 18 months is the correct timeframe upon hearing
from commenters that there are firms available to assist the farmers to
come into compliance.
    The Agency recognizes that farms, more than other industries, are
directly impacted by extreme weather conditions, such as the
devastating flooding and drought that was experienced this past year by
a substantial portion of the continental U.S. Rather than requiring all
impacted farms to submit a written request to the Regional
Administrator of the EPA Regional Office for the state where the farm
is located in accordance with paragraph (f) of 40 CFR 112.3, we
determined that it is more efficient to extend the compliance date for
the farm industry. We also want to emphasize that farms should not wait
until May 10, 2013, to ready their SPCC Plans. Farms should take
advantage of non-growing and non-harvesting seasons to focus on
preparing and implementing their SPCC Plans.
    Comments: Additionally, three of the four comments correctly
explain that EPA's action does not provide an extension for those farms
that were in operation on or before August 16, 2002, and which did not
have a previously developed SPCC Plan. Such farms may be in
noncompliance with the rule. A commenter also questioned the necessity
of the current action, pointing out that most farms are in
noncompliance and would not benefit from the extension. A second
commenter also pointed out the misconception that all farmers
(producers) will be eligible for the extension. The commenter stated
that many farmers do not have SPCC Plans, thus, making them ineligible
for the extension.
    Response: The Agency agrees with commenters that said that only
existing farms maintaining an SPCC plan or new farms coming into
operation after August 16, 2002, are eligible for the extension
provided by this action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and
therefore is not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final action does not impose any new information collection
burden. The amendments in this final rule simply extend the compliance
date for farms. This final rule does not change any reporting
requirements in the general provisions. However, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information
collection requirements contained in the existing subparts of 40 CFR
112 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2050-0021. The OMB control
numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Subparts that will be added through separate rulemakings will document
the respective information collection requirements in their own ICR
documents.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The final rule simply amends the date for compliance. The
final rule does not itself add any additional subparts or requirements.
The final rule will not impose any new requirements on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order (EO) 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to
ensure ``meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism
implications.'' ``Policies that have Federalism implications'' is
defined in the EO to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This final rule does not have Federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in EO 13132. This amendment applies directly to farms. It
does not apply to governmental entities unless the government entity
owns a farm, as defined in 40 CFR 112.2 Definitions. This regulation
also does not limit the power of states or localities to regulate
farms. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to this final rule.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The changes in
this final rule do not result in any changes to the requirements of the
2009 rule. Thus Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This final rule is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO
12866, and because the Agency does not believe the environmental health
or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate
risk to children. The changes in this final rule do not result in any
changes to the requirements applicable to farms, other than the date
for compliance.

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

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have any adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that the final rule amendments will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because the amendments do
not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the U.S. prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective November 22, 2011.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 112

    Oil pollution prevention, Farms, Compliance date, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 10, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out above, title 40, chapter I of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 112--OIL POLLUTION PREVENTION

0
1. The authority citation for part 112 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 2720; and E.O.
12777 (October 18, 1991), 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351.

0
2. Section 112.3 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as
follows:

Sec.  112.3  Requirement to prepare and implement a Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure Plan.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (3) If your farm, as defined in Sec.  112.2, was in operation on or
before August 16, 2002, you must maintain your Plan, but must amend it,
if necessary to ensure compliance with this part, and implement the
amended Plan on or before May 10, 2013. If your farm becomes
operational after August 16, 2002, through May 10, 2013, and could
reasonably be expected to have a discharge as described in Sec.
112.1(b), you must prepare and implement a Plan on or before May 10,
2013. If your farm becomes operational after May 10, 2013, and could
reasonably be expected to have a discharge as described in Sec.
112.1(b), you must prepare and implement a Plan before you begin
operations.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-29901 Filed 11-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P