[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 92 (Thursday, May 12, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29033-29037]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10178]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1140; Project Identifier AD-2020-01009-T;
Amendment 39-21972; AD 2022-06-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-14-
13, which applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. AD 2017-14-13 required a
torque check of the screws in the cover assembly of the heel rest for
both the captain's and the first officer's rudder pedals, and
corrective action if necessary. This AD was prompted by a report of an
aborted takeoff because the rudder pedals were not operating correctly,
and subsequent reports of loose rudder pedal cover fasteners on
airplanes on which the actions required by AD 2017-14-13 were done and
on additional airplanes that were not included in the applicability of
AD 2017-14-13. This AD requires modifying the rudder pedal cover and
shroud assemblies, and applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600,
-700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes and Model 737-8
and 737-9 airplanes. This AD also limits the installation of affected
parts under certain conditions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective June 16, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 16,
2022.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2020-1140.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-1140; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, any
comments received, and other information. The address for Docket
Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Tsuji, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2017-14-13, Amendment 39-18957 (82 FR
33007, July 19, 2017) (``AD 2017-14-13''). AD 2017-14-13 applied to
certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and
-900ER series airplanes. AD 2017-14-13 required a torque check of the
screws in the cover assembly of the heel rest for both the captain's
and the first officer's rudder pedals, and corrective action if
necessary.
    The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 21, 2021 (86
FR 6273). The NPRM was prompted by a report of an aborted takeoff
because the rudder pedals were not operating correctly and subsequent
reports of loose rudder pedal cover fasteners on airplanes on which the
actions required by AD 2017-14-13 had been done. These reports
demonstrated that the required torque checks were ineffective in
guaranteeing fastener retention and that additional airplanes that had
not been included in the applicability of AD 2017-14-13 are also
affected (i.e., all Model 737-8 and 737-9 airplanes; and Model 737-600,
-700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, having line
numbers 3556 and subsequent). In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require
modifying the rudder pedal cover and shroud assemblies with a new
design that prevents the fasteners from backing out. The NPRM also
proposed to limit the installation of affected parts under certain
conditions, including modification of the cover or shroud assembly in
accordance with the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address cover assembly fasteners interfering with
the operation of a rudder pedal. A fastener can back out and restrict
rudder pedal motion and reduce differential braking control during
takeoff or landing, which could cause a high-speed runway excursion.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received supportive comments from two commenters: Air Line
Pilots Association, International (ALPA) and United Airlines (UAL).
ALPA supported the NPRM without change. UAL supported the NPRM, but
requested clarification regarding the method for part marking, as
discussed later in this discussion.
    The FAA also received comments from Boeing, Aviation Partners
Boeing, and Delta Air Lines (DAL). The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets
per Supplemental Type Certificate STC ST00830SE does not affect
compliance with the proposed actions.
    The FAA agrees with the commenter. The installation of STC
ST00830SE does not affect an operator's ability to accomplish the
actions required by this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD.

Request To Update the Service Information to the Latest Revision

    Boeing requested that the FAA require Boeing Requirements Bulletin
737-27A1314 RB, Revision 2, dated July 6, 2021, because an individual
airplane was omitted from the effectivity of the previous revision of
the service bulletin (the NPRM proposed that operators do actions using
Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1314 RB, Revision 1, dated
June 24, 2020).
    The FAA agrees to require Boeing Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1314
RB, Revision 2, dated July 6, 2021, because the individual airplane
added to the effectivity of that service bulletin was already in the
applicability of the proposed rule and therefore no change to the
applicability of the final rule is necessary.
    Furthermore, Boeing Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1314 RB, Revision
2, dated July 6, 2021, does not add new actions or revise the existing
actions specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1314 RB,
Revision 1, dated June 24, 2020, which the NPRM proposed as a method of
compliance for doing the actions required by this AD.
    The FAA has revised this AD to specify that required actions be
done in accordance with Boeing Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1314 RB,
Revision 2, dated July 6, 2021, as applicable, and to give credit for
actions done in accordance with Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-
27A1314 RB, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2020.

Request To Change Applicability of the Proposed AD

    Boeing requested that the applicability of the proposed AD be
revised to match the effectivity defined in Boeing Alert Requirements
Bulletin 737-27A1313 RB, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2020, or Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1314 RB, Revision 1, dated June 24,
2020. Boeing stated that the shroud and cover do not meet the
definition of ``rotable parts'' in the new configuration, because the
parts are no longer interchangeable following modification and must
also have the mating part (the part that attached to the aircraft
structure) modified to be installed. Boeing also stated a ``pre-
modified part'' cannot be installed on an airplane having the service
bulletin modifications. Based on this non-interchangeability, Boeing
does not consider these as rotable.
    The FAA disagrees with changing the applicability, as specified in
paragraph (c) of this AD, because the FAA has determined there is a
rotability issue. It is true that an original shroud assembly cannot be
installed with an upper cover assembly modified as specified in the
requirements bulletins identified in this AD, and conversely a shroud
assembly modified as specified in the requirements bulletins cannot be
installed with an original upper cover assembly. However, it is still
physically possible to install an original shroud assembly and an
original upper cover assembly (the combination with the unsafe
condition) on an airplane not identified in the Boeing requirements
bulletins. Therefore, no changes have been made to this AD regarding
this request.

Request for Definition of ``Production Equivalent''

    Boeing and DAL requested that the FAA revise paragraph (g) of the
proposed AD to further define what constitutes a ``production
equivalent.'' DAL asked if certain part numbers and subsequent part
numbers that are fully interchangeable can be installed. Boeing stated
that more guidance is needed for operators on how to verify that the
change is incorporated on production airplanes that have been
delivered. Boeing stated that for airplanes modified by Boeing,
operators do not have a corresponding maintenance record and that
delivery records may be used for verification of production equivalent.
    The FAA agrees with the request. The NPRM did not provide a
definition of a ``production equivalent,'' which need not be further
modified. Paragraph (g) of this AD has been revised to include the
following information: ``A production equivalent can be determined by
its upper cover assembly part numbers (P/Ns 251A3122-15 (pilot) and
251A3122-16 (first officer), or later approved part numbers) and shroud
assembly part numbers (P/Ns 233A2319-5 or -6, or later approved part
numbers, used for both pilot and first officer).''

Request for Re-Identification of Modified Housing and Shrouds

    DAL requested that the service information be revised. DAL stated
that modified housing and shrouds should be re-identified with a new
dash number instead of with the service bulletin number. DAL stated
that configuration control could be an issue if the pre- and post-
modification parts were to share a common part number. The commenter
asserted that in an aircraft on ground or ``AOG'' situation (such as
when a maintenance issue prevents the airplane from departing from an
airport until the issue is resolved), the operator could find out too
late that a part brought to the airplane is unmodified and is,
therefore, restricted for installation, which could lead to an
operational delay to allow for part modification prior to returning the
aircraft to service. DAL argued that a new, unique part number would
eliminate that risk.
    The FAA disagrees with the requested change. The FAA acknowledges
that parts are typically identified by part numbers, and that continued
use of the same part number for both modified and unmodified parts
could make it difficult for operators to keep track of them. However,
the FAA disagrees with re-identifying modified parts with a new dash
number, because some operators have already modified their airplanes
using the existing service information and imposing this additional
requirement would necessitate work unrelated to addressing the unsafe
condition. Furthermore, waiting for revised service information that
incorporates the identification of new dash numbers would delay the
issuance of this AD. After this AD is issued, operators could
coordinate with the manufacturer to create a unique new part number for
parts modified in accordance with the service information, and the
manufacturer could propose installation of the new part number as an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to this AD. This AD has not
been changed with regard to this request.

Request To Allow Part Marking by Hand Lettering

    DAL requested a change in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD to
specify either rubber stamp or hand lettering, because hand lettering
is an acceptable alternate method of part marking for the affected
part. DAL also stated that the manufacturer agrees hand lettering is an
acceptable alternative to the rubber stamp method. In addition, UAL
requested that the FAA clarify the part marking in the required for
compliance (RC) step of the service information that refers to the
standard overhaul practices manual (SOPM). UAL stated that the SOPM
includes a note referring to alternate marking methods (i.e., hand
lettering instead of rubber stamp).
    The FAA disagrees with the request to modify paragraph (i) of this
AD because the service information does not specify the method by which
the part marking must be applied. This AD requires that part marking
must be done. However, the method of part marking is not mandated, as
the service information refers to the SOPM. The use of the ``refer to''
indicates the SOPM is guidance on how to do the part marking. The SOPM

specifies using a rubber stamp and allows for hand lettering as an
alternative action so operators may use either method or may use an
accepted alternative. This AD has not been changed regarding this
request.

Request To Change To Allow Installation of New Housing

    DAL requested a change to correct certain discrepancies in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1314, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2020. In
the non-RC sections ``Work Package 1, Part 2: Installation, Test and
Close Access'' and ``Work Package 2, Part 2: Installation, Test and
Close Access,'' DAL asked for a change in wording of the proposed AD to
indicate that a ``new or changed'' upper cover assembly could be
installed. The commenter explained that the work instructions allow
either Option 1 (modify then reinstall existing housing) or Option 2
(install new housing).
    The FAA disagrees with the request. While the non-RC work
instructions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1314, Revision 1,
dated June 24, 2020, accurately describe the allowable installations,
changing the AD would not be warranted because the indicated sections
are not within Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1314 RB,
Revision 2, dated July 6, 2021 (or within Revision 1, dated June 24,
2020). ``Work Package 1, Part 2: Installation, Test and Close Access''
and ``Work Package 2, Part 2: Installation, Test and Close Access,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1314, Revision 2, dated July 6,
2021, are for reference only. The manufacturer may choose to update
this section of the service information in a future revision, but this
section does not affect compliance with this AD. Operators can use
either option as specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-
27A1314 RB, Revision 2, dated July 6, 2021. This AD has not been
changed regarding this request.

Clarification of Parts Installation Prohibition

    Paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of the proposed AD specified the parts
installation prohibition for airplanes with an original airworthiness
certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued
after the effective date of this AD and prior to the effective date of
this AD. However, airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate
or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on the effective
date of this AD were not identified in either paragraph. The FAA has
revised paragraph (k)(1) of this AD to include the parts installation
prohibition for airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or
original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or after the
effective date of this AD.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting the
requirements of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1313 RB,
Revision 1, dated June 24, 2020; and Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
737-27A1314 RB, Revision 2, dated July 6, 2021. The service information
describes procedures for modifying the captain's and first officer's
rudder pedal cover and shroud assemblies. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
ADDRESSES.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 2,048 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Action                Labor cost      Parts cost      Cost per product       Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modifying the rudder pedal     Up to 13 work-         $5,560  Up to $6,665...........  Up to $13,649,920.
 cover and shroud assemblies.   hours x $85 per
                                hour = Up to
                                $1,105.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all costs in its cost estimate. According to
the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
operators.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2017-14-13, Amendment 39-18957 (82
FR 33007, July 19, 2017); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

2022-06-06 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-21972; Docket No. FAA-
2020-1140; Project Identifier AD-2020-01009-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective June 16, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2017-14-13, Amendment 39-18957 (82 FR 33007,
July 19, 2017) (AD 2017-14-13).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company airplanes specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
    (1) Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series
airplanes.
    (2) Model 737-8 and 737-9 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
controls.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of an aborted takeoff because
the rudder pedals were not operating correctly, and subsequent
reports of loose rudder pedal cover fasteners on airplanes on which
the actions required by AD 2017-14-13 were done and on additional
airplanes that were not included in the applicability of AD 2017-14-
13. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cover assembly fasteners
interfering with the operation of a rudder pedal. A fastener can
back out and restrict rudder pedal motion and reduce differential
braking control during takeoff or landing, which could cause a high-
speed runway excursion.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Determination of Modification Status

    For airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or
original export certificate of airworthiness issued before the
effective date of this AD: Within 27 months after the date of
issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or original
export certificate of airworthiness, or within 27 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, determine whether
the captain's and first officer's rudder pedal cover and shroud
assemblies have been modified as specified in Boeing Alert
Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1313 RB, Revision 1, dated June 24,
2020; or 737-27A1314 RB, Revision 2, dated July 6, 2021; as
applicable, or has a production equivalent. A production equivalent
can be determined by its upper cover assembly part numbers (P/Ns
251A3122-15 (pilot) and 251A3122-16 (first officer), or later
approved part numbers) and shroud assembly part numbers (P/Ns
233A2319-5 or -6, or later approved part numbers, used for both
pilot and first officer). A review of airplane maintenance records
is acceptable for this requirement if the modification status can be
conclusively determined from that review.

(h) Modification

    For airplanes that have not been modified as determined by
paragraph (g) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in the
``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-
27A1313 RB, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2020, or Boeing Alert
Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1314 RB, Revision 2, dated July 6,
2021, as applicable, except as specified by paragraph (i) of this
AD, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with,
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements
Bulletin 737-27A1313 RB, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2020; or Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1314 RB, Revision 2, dated July
6, 2021; as applicable.
    Note 1 to paragraph (h): Guidance for accomplishing the actions
required by paragraph (h) of this AD can be found in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-27A1313, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2020; and
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1314, Revision 2, dated July 6,
2021; which are referred to in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
737-27A1313 RB, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2020; and Boeing Alert
Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1314 RB, Revision 2, dated July 6,
2021; respectively.

(i) Exception to Service Information Specifications

    Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1313 RB,
Revision 1, dated June 24, 2020; and Boeing Alert Requirements
Bulletin 737-27A1314 RB, Revision 2, dated July 6, 2021, use the
phrase ``the original issue date of'' each Requirements Bulletin for
compliance, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
737-27A1313 RB, dated March 18, 2020; Boeing Alert Requirements
Bulletin 737-27A1314 RB, dated March 18, 2020; or Boeing Alert
Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1314 RB, Revision 1, dated June 24,
2020.

(k) Parts Installation Limitation

    (1) For airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or
original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or after the
effective date of this AD: As of the effective date of this AD, no
person may install a captain's or first officer's rudder pedal cover
or shroud assembly on any airplane, unless the cover or shroud
assembly has been modified in accordance with the requirements of
paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (2) For airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or
original export certificate of airworthiness issued prior to the
effective date of this AD: After the modification required by
paragraph (h) of this AD has been done, no person may install a
captain's or first officer's rudder pedal cover or shroud assembly
on any airplane, unless the cover or shroud assembly has been
modified in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (h) of
this AD. Reinstallation of a rudder pedal cover or shroud assembly
that has not been modified in accordance with paragraph (h) of this
AD but has been removed for other maintenance is allowed.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (m) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair
method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2017-14-13 are not approved
as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

(m) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Douglas Tsuji,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Seattle ACO
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-
3548; email: [email protected].

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1313 RB, Revision
1, dated June 24, 2020.
    (ii) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1314 RB, Revision
2, dated July 6, 2021.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600;

telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email [email protected], or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on March 10, 2022.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-10178 Filed 5-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 200 (Monday, October 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 64083]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26696]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meeting
related to the transmission planning activities of the Southwest Power
Pool, Inc. (SPP): SPP Strategic Planning Committee Meeting, October 13,
2011,8 a.m.- 3 p.m., Local Time.
    The above-referenced meeting will be held at: Doubletree Dallas,
4099 Valley View Lane, Dallas, TX 75244.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at http://www.spp.org.
    The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:
    Docket No. ER10-1069-001, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. EL11-34-001, Midwest Independent Transmission System
Operator, Inc.
    Docket No. ER09-548-001, ITC Great Plains, LLC.
    Docket No. ER09-35-001, Tallgrass Transmission, LLC.
    Docket No. ER09-36-001, Prairie Wind Transmission, LLC.
    Docket No. ER09-36-002, Prairie Wind Transmission, LLC.
    For more information, contact Partha Malvadkar, Office of Energy
Markets Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-
6332 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: October 7, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26696 Filed 10-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 838-840]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00473]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84961; File No. SR-Phlx-2018-84]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Phlx Rule
1034

December 26, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 21, 2018, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Rule 1034 (Minimum Increments)
\3\ to extend through June 30, 2019 or the date of permanent approval,
if earlier, the Penny Pilot Program in options classes in certain
issues (``Penny Pilot'' or ``Pilot''), and to change the date when
delisted classes may be replaced in the Penny Pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ References herein to rules refer to rules of Phlx, unless
otherwise noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend Phlx Rule 1034 to extend the
Penny Pilot through June 30, 2019 or the date of permanent approval, if
earlier,\4\ and to change the date when delisted classes may be
replaced in the Penny Pilot. The Exchange believes that extending the
Penny Pilot will allow for further analysis of the Penny Pilot and a
determination of how the program should be structured in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The options exchanges in the U.S. that have pilot programs
similar to the Penny Pilot (together ``pilot programs'') are
currently working on a proposal for permanent approval of the
respective pilot programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Penny Pilot, the minimum price variation for all
participating options classes, except for the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking
Stock (``QQQQ''), the SPDR S&P 500 Exchange Traded Fund (``SPY'') and
the iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (``IWM''), is $0.01 for all
quotations in options series that are quoted at less than $3 per
contract and $0.05 for all quotations in options series that are quoted
at $3 per contract or greater. QQQQ, SPY and IWM are quoted in $0.01
increments for all options series. The Penny Pilot is currently
scheduled to expire on December 31, 2018.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83530 (June 28,
2018), 83 FR 31227 (July 3, 2018) (SR-Phlx-2018-50).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to extend the time period of the Penny Pilot
through June 30, 2019 or the date of permanent approval, if earlier,
and to provide a revised date for adding replacement issues to the
Penny Pilot. The Exchange proposes that any Penny Pilot Program issues
that have been delisted may be replaced on the second trading day
following January 1, 2019. The replacement issues will be selected
based on trading activity in the previous six months.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The replacement issues will be announced to the Exchange's
membership via an Options Trader Alert (OTA) posted on the
Exchange's website. Penny Pilot replacement issues will be selected
based on trading activity in the previous six months, as is the case
today. The replacement issues would be identified based on The
Options Clearing Corporation's trading volume data. For example, for
the January replacement, trading volume from June 1, 2018 through
November 30, 2018 would be analyzed. The month immediately preceding
the replacement issues' addition to the Pilot (i.e., December) would
not be used for purposes of the six-month analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This filing does not propose any substantive changes to the Penny
Pilot Program; all classes currently participating in the Penny Pilot
will

remain the same and all minimum increments will remain unchanged. The
Exchange believes the benefits to public customers and other market
participants who will be able to express their true prices to buy and
sell options have been demonstrated to outweigh the potential increase
in quote traffic.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change, which extends the Penny
Pilot for an additional six months through June 30, 2019 or the date of
permanent approval, if earlier, and changes the date for replacing
Penny Pilot issues that were delisted to the second trading day
following January 1, 2019, will enable public customers and other
market participants to express their true prices to buy and sell
options for the benefit of all market participants. This is consistent
with the Act.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, this proposal
is pro-competitive because it allows Penny Pilot issues to continue
trading on the Exchange.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will
allow for further analysis of the Pilot and a determination of how the
Pilot should be structured in the future; and will serve to promote
regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the
marketplace and facilitating investor protection.
    The Pilot is an industry-wide initiative supported by all other
option exchanges. The Exchange believes that extending the Pilot will
allow for continued competition between market participants on the
Exchange trading similar products as their counterparts on other
exchanges, while at the same time allowing the Exchange to continue to
compete for order flow with other exchanges in option issues trading as
part of the Pilot.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \10\ thereunder.
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 after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\12\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\14\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because doing so will
allow the Pilot Program to continue without interruption in a manner
that is consistent with the Commission's prior approval of the
extension and expansion of the Pilot Program.\15\ Accordingly, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing
with the Commission.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 61061 (November 24,
2009), 74 FR 62857 (December 1, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-44).
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule 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-PHLX-2018-84 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PHLX-2018-84. 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 20549-1090 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-
Phlx-2018-84 and should be submitted on or before February 21, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-00473 Filed 1-30-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3429-3431]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00982]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71293; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2014-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Rules in Order To Clarify the
Applicability and Functionality of Certain Order Types on the Exchange

January 14, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on January 8, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules in order to clarify the
applicability and functionality of certain order types on the Exchange.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts 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 6.62 (Certain Types of Orders
Defined), by revising the definitions of certain order types. The
Exchange is not proposing to change or alter any obligations, rights,
policies or practices enumerated within its rules. Rather, this
proposal is designed to reduce any potential investor confusion as
[sic] the functionality and applicability of certain order types
presently available on the NYSE Arca.
Background
    In reviewing its rules, the Exchange has determined that certain
order type definitions are outdated and need revising, while others do
not fully explain the functionality and applicability of the order type
they are attempting to define. Accordingly, the Exchange now proposes
to amend such definitions so as to reduce any potential investor
confusion as to the functionality and applicability of certain option
order types available on NYSE Arca.
Proposed Changes to Order Type Definitions
    Rule 6.62(a) Market Order. A Market Order is an order to buy or
sell a stated number of options contracts and is to be executed at the
best price obtainable when the order reaches the Exchange. The order
may be executed at the best possible price at the Exchange or by
routing the order to another Exchange displaying the best price. In the
event the Exchange receives a Market Order in a particular series and
there is no National Best Bid (``NBB'') and no National Best Offer
(``NBO'') (collectively ``NBBO'') being disseminated by OPRA for that
series at the time the order is received, an

execution cannot take place. The lack of an NBBO means that there is no
trading interest on the Exchange or any other exchange where that
series may be listed which could be indicative of a systems issue, or
some other unusual activity. If this occurs during Core Trading
Hours,\4\ the Exchange believes that it is preferable to reject the
order back to the submitting OTP Holder instead of having the order
remain unexecuted for an indeterminable amount of time. A Market Order
that gets rejected back to a submitting OTP Holder contains a message
code explaining the reason for the reject.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.1A(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.62(a) in order
to describe what occurs when the Exchange receives a Market Order to
buy (sell) and there is an NBB (NBO) but no NBO (NBB) being
disseminated by OPRA. Unlike the lack of an NBBO as described above,
the dissemination of just an NBB or just a NBO is not necessarily
indicative of unusual activity, therefore the Exchange will not reject
orders in these situations. Instead, the order will be processed
pursuant to Rule 6.60(a)--Trade Collar Protection. By processing using
collar protection, the Market Order is afforded an execution
opportunity coupled with price protection.
    The Exchange now proposes to codify in Rule 6.62(a) that: (1) If
there is no NBBO being disseminated at the time a Market Order is
received by the Exchange, the order will be rejected, and (2) if
Exchange receives a Market Order to buy (sell) and there is an NBB
(NBO) but no NBO (NBB) being disseminated at the time, the order will
be processed pursuant to Rule 6.60(a)--Trade Collar Protection.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to clarify that those Market
Orders that are entered before the opening of trading will be eligible
for trading during the Opening Auction Process.
    Rule 6.62(c) Inside Limit Order. An Inside Limit Order is an order
type designed to route away to the market participant or participants
with the best displayed price. Any unfilled portion of the order will
not be routed to the next best price level until all quotes at the
current best bid or offer are exhausted.
    Due to a lack of demand for Inside Limit Orders, the Exchange plans
to decommission the functionality supporting this order type. The
Exchange does not intend to re-introduce it at any time in the future.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to delete Rule 6.62(c) and reserve
the rule number for future use.
    Rule 6.62(d)(1)-(2) Stop Orders and Stop Limit Orders. A Stop Order
is an order that becomes a Market Order when the market for a
particular option contract reaches a specified price. A Stop Limit
Order is an order that becomes a Limit Order when the market for a
particular option contract reaches a specified price (also known as the
``triggering event''). Stop Orders and Stop Limit Orders (collectively
``Stop Orders'') track the price of an option and are generally used to
limit losses as prices move up, or down. ``Sell'' Stop Orders may be
triggered as the price falls, and ``buy'' Stop Orders may be triggered
as the price rises. Accordingly, the specified price for a ``buy'' Stop
Order must be above the price the option is trading at the time the
order is entered, and the specified priced for a ``sell'' Stop Order
must be at a price less than the option is trading at the time the
order is entered. Stop Orders entered with a specified price above
(below) the price the option is trading for at the time of entry are
rejected back to submitting OTP Holder with message code explaining the
reason for the reject.
    The Exchange now proposes to add clarifying text to Rules
6.62(d)(1) and (2) stating that Stop and Stop Limit Orders entered with
a specified price above the bid (below the offer) in the option series
at the time the order is entered will be rejected.
    Rule 6.62(d)(5) Stock Contingency Order. The execution of a Stock
Contingency Order is contingent upon the last sale price of the
underlying stock traded at the primary marketplace. Stock Contingency
Orders are handled by Floor Brokers and are not supported by the
System. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.62(d)(5) to clarify that
Stock Contingency Orders are only eligible for open outcry trading.
    Rule 6.62(d)(6) Tracking Order. A Tracking Order is an undisplayed
Limit Order that is eligible for execution in the Working Order Process
against orders equal to or less than the size of the Tracking Order. A
Tracking Order is only executable at a price matching the NBBO. If a
Tracking Order is executed but not exhausted, the remaining portion of
the order shall be cancelled, without routing the order to another
market center or market participant. A Tracking Order shall not trade-
through the NBBO. Tracking Orders only have standing if contra-side
interest in the System would otherwise be routed to another market
center at the NBBO.
    Due to a lack of demand for Tracking Orders, the Exchange plans to
decommission the functionality supporting this order type. The Exchange
does not intend to re-introduce it at any time in the future.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to delete Rule 6.62(d)(6).
    Rule 6.62(g) One-cancels-the-other (OCO) Order. A One-cancels-the-
other Order consists of two or more orders treated as a unit. The
execution of any one of the orders causes the others to be cancelled.
``One cancels the other'' is an instruction given to a Floor Broker
when handling multiple orders for a single OTP Holder. The Exchange
proposes to amend Rule 6.62(g) to clarify that OCOs are only available
for open outcry trading.
    Rule 6.62(i) Single Stock Future (``SSF'')/Option Order. An SSF/
Option Order is an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of a
single stock future or a security convertible into a single stock
future (``convertible SSF'') coupled with a purchase or sale of options
overlying the same security as the SSF. SSF/Option Orders are handled
by Floor Brokers who execute the options portion of the order in open
outcry on the floor of the Exchange and routes a SSF order to a third
party broker for execution on a futures exchange. The Exchange proposes
to amend Rule 6.62(i) to clarify that SSF/Option Orders are only
available for open outcry trading.
    Rule 6.62(o) Now Order. A Now Order is a Limit Order that is to be
executed in whole or in part on the Exchange, and the portion not so
executed shall be routed pursuant to Rule 6.76A only to one or more NOW
Recipients for immediate execution. NOW Orders that are not marketable
when submitted to NYSE Arca are cancelled.
    NOW Orders are determined to be marketable if an execution can take
place either on NYSE Arca or by routing the order to an away market
center that is at the NBBO. The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule
6.62(o) to clarity that a NOW Order that is not marketable against the
NBBO (which would be inclusive of the NYSE Arca and other markets) will
be rejected.
    Rule 6.62(r) Opening Only Order. The Exchange proposes to correct
minor typographical errors in the rule text but make no substantive
changes to the rule itself.
    Rule 6.62(t) Liquidity Adding Order. A Liquidity Adding Order
(``LAO'') is a limit order which is to be accepted only if it is not
executable at the time of receipt. Orders with the liquidity adding
instruction will not be routed if marketable against the NBBO, but will
be rejected. LAO will only be accepted if the order is not executable
at the time of receipt. LAOs are cancelled upon the conclusion of Core
Trading, therefore the System does not accept LAOs with

a time in force of GTC. The Exchange proposes to clarify in the rule
text that LAOs may only be entered with a time-in-force of Day. In
addition, the Exchange proposes to correct minor typographical errors
in the rule text.
    The Exchange plans to issue a Trader Update announcing the changes
to order types proposed by this rule filing. The Trader Update will be
distributed to all OTP Holders and OTP Firms upon the approval date of
the rule change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that, deleting obsolete and/or
outdated rules, correcting inaccurate language, and enhancing the
descriptions as to the functionality of certain order types will add
transparency and clarity to the Exchange's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that clarifying the definitions
of Market Orders, Stop Orders, NOW Orders and LAOs removes impediments
to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by helping to
ensure that investors better understand the functionality of certain
orders types available for trading on the Exchange. Additionally, the
Exchange believes that specifying that Stock Contingency Orders, SSF/
Option Orders and OCO Orders are only for trading in open outcry will
help to protect investors and the public interest by reducing potential
confusion when routing orders to NYSE Arca. Lastly, the Exchange
believes that deleting definitions applicable to Inside Limit Orders
and Tracking Orders provides clarity to Exchange rules by eliminating
outdated and obsolete functionality.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposal removes impediments
to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by ensuring
that members, regulators and the public can more easily navigate the
Exchange's rulebook and better understand the order types available for
trading on the Exchange.

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 proposed change is not
designed to address any competitive issue but rather revise incomplete
or inaccurate rule text or remove language pertaining to unavailable
functionality in the Exchange's rulebook, thereby reducing confusion
and making the Exchange's rules easier to understand and navigate.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2014-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2014-02. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2014-02 and should
be submitted on or before February 11, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-00982 Filed 1-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


April 17, 2002 MEMORANDUM:

SUBJECT: Lindane (009001): Revised Dietary Risk and Exposure Estimate For Lindane Through Subsistence Diets for Indigenous People of Alaska. DP Barcode # D282455. Reregistration Case 0315. MRID No. none.

FROM: Thurston G. Morton, Chemist Reregistration Branch 4 Health Effects Division (7509C)

THROUGH: Susan V. Hummel, Branch Senior Scientist Reregistration Branch 4 Health Effects Division (7509C)

TO: Mark Howard/ Betty Shackleford Reregistration Branch 3 Special Review & Reregistration Division (7508C)

INTRODUCTION:

The occurrence of organochlorine contaminants in the Arctic has been documented in several studies. A variety of organochlorine contaminants including lindane has been found in terrestrial, freshwater, and marine habitats. This contamination is primarily the result of long range continental transport through the movement of the air and ocean currents. The source of the lindane is unknown but most likely reflects past uses other than seed treatment. Lindane is the gamma isomer of hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) and is also known as gamma isomer of benzene hexachloride (BHC). Technical HCH contained the alpha, beta, delta, and gamma isomers but was banned in the United States in the 1970s. The composition of technical HCH varied widely, but often the alpha isomer was the predominant isomer. Lindane (gamma isomer of HCH) remains registered in the U. S. as a seed treatment only. Studies have shown higher concentrations of lindane and total HCH in some wildlife from west to east. This is thought to be due to the direction of air currents. 2 The Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic region of the U. S. (Alaska) rely heavily on subsistence diets as their food source. Thus, it is appropriate for the Agency to perform a supplementary dietary risk and exposure assessment to assess the risk to the Indigenous People from worldwide use and manufacture of lindane. This memorandum serves to update the previous dietary assessment performed for the indigenous people of Alaska by incorporating new information pertaining to subsistence meat intake by children. Because the annual harvest rates were divided by 365 to obtain daily harvest rates, and the daily intake rates used in the assessment no acute dietary exposure analysis was conducted.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 Using subsistence food harvest amounts, total HCH residues in traditional foods, and adjusting the HCH exposure (since lindane represents between 3 and 15 % of total HCH residues) to obtain lindane exposure results in an range of exposures of 0. 0039  0. 04231 mg/ day. Thus dividing this exposure by 70 kg (weight of adult male) would result in a range of exposures for the male Indigenous People to lindane of 0.000055  0. 00060 mg/ kg bw/ day which is 3  38 % cPAD and below HED's level of concern (cPAD = 0.0016 mg/ kg body weight/ day). Dividing the range of exposures of 0.0039  0. 04231 mg/ day by 60 kg (weight of adult female) would result in a range of exposures for the female Indigenous People to lindane of 0.000064  0. 00071 mg/ kg bw/ day which is 4  44 % cPAD and below HED's level of concern. The adult intake amounts from each community were adjusted by a factor of 0.53 to correct for the difference in subsistence meat intake between children and adults. These adjusted child intake amounts were then used to calculate a range of lindane dietary risk estimates for children 1 6 years old resulting from subsistence food consumption of 13 % to 138 % cPAD. The dietary risk estimates resulting from subsistence food consumption for children 7 12 years old was 448 % of the cPAD. The child risks also incorporates the range of potential lindane residues relative to total HCH (i. e., 3 15%).

 HED believes these estimates may be an overestimate of dietary risk since dietary intake equaled harvest (i. e., adults consume up to 2. 4 pounds of subsistence meat per day and children consume up to 1.3 pounds of subsistence meat per day). Harvest amounts were used from the three communities of approximately 180 Alaskan communities with the highest seal harvest, highest whale harvest, and the highest walrus harvest. This does not take into account portions of the harvest which were discarded or used for non dietary purposes. Also, the maximum detected HCH residue concentration was used in the calculation of the HCH exposure in the respective subsistence food item. For example, the beluga whale blubber HCH concentration was assumed for the entire harvest (and consumption) amount and not taking into account other tissues consumed which may have had much lower residue amounts. 3 DETAILED CONSIDERATIONS:

Memoranda providing details of relevant toxicological information include the HIARC report dated 6/ 18/ 01 and the FQPA Safety Factor Committee report dated 8/ 2/ 00.

The acute and chronic FQPA safety factors of 10X were reduced to 3X (see FQPA Safety Factor Document, 8/ 2/ 00). A reference dose (RfD) which includes the FQPA safety factor (typically 10X, 3X or 1X) is defined as the Population Adjusted Dose (PAD). Doses and endpoints for dietary risk assessment are presented in Table 1.

The chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) for lindane is 0.0016 mg/ kg/ day. The cPAD is the chronic RfD of 0.0047 mg/ kg/ day divided by the FQPA factor of 3 yielding a cPAD of 0.0016 mg/ kg/ day. The chronic endpoint and dose is listed in Table 1 below.

The Agency used the subsistence food harvest amounts of nearly 180 communities from the Community Profile Database Version 3. 11 dated 3/ 27/ 01 from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence as subsistence food intake rates. This is a database which includes the harvest of subsistence foods in Alaskan communities from the years 1990 2001. From personal communication with Mr. Roland Shanks from the Alaska Inter Tribal Council it was determined that usually only two of the following marine mammals (walrus, seal, and whale) are harvested in significant amounts. Therefore, HED used the community with the highest representative seal harvest, the community with the highest walrus harvest, and the community with the highest whale harvest. Generally polar bear and another marine mammal were also used along with the harvest of significant amounts of fish, land mammal, and birds from the corresponding Alaskan community. HED used the per capita harvest amount as the human intake amount which would be a conservative estimate since some of the harvest would be used for nonhuman food purposes and waste. Variability in intake amounts have been shown between tribal communities within Western Canada. It is therefore likely that there would be variability in intake rates between tribal communities in Alaska depending on the availability of fish and game meat. The adult intake amounts were adjusted by a factor of 0.53 to obtain the intake amount for children. This factor was derived from a publication (Heller, 1966) 1 .

Population Community Pt. Hope Notak Shungnak Adult Males 438 grams 429 grams 573 grams Children 7 12 years old 230 grams 230 grams 303 grams Child's % of Adults Subsistence Meat Consumption 52.5 53.6 52.9 4 The Agency coupled this dietary intake data with organochlorine residue data which were obtained from Dr. Laurie Chan of McGill University in Canada via personal communication. The report gave analytical results of the samples for total hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) and not the individual isomers. Using this value would overestimate the risk estimate by including other isomers of HCH in addition to lindane which is the gamma isomer. The other isomers of HCH may be environmental concentrations resulting from previous use of technical HCH. Therefore, a factor of 0.03 or 0.15 was used to multiply the total HCH exposure to account for exposure to lindane only. The factor of 0.03 or 0.15 was derived from a study conducted by McGill University (Receveur, 1998) in which lindane and total HCH was measured. Lindane accounted for <3 to 15 % of the total HCH present in samples of animal tissue.

The data included analytical results for total HCH in numerous traditional foods. The report listed a maximum residue value of 20 ng/ g of total HCH for walrus blubber, 215 ng/ g for ringed seal blubber, 9 ng/ g for moose flesh, 1 ng/ g for caribou flesh, 2 ng/ g for muskox flesh, 4 ng/ g for Dall sheep flesh, 26 ng/ g for salmon flesh, 20 ng/ g for whitefish flesh, 6 ng/ g for arctic char flesh, 3 ng/ g for arctic grayling flesh, 1 ng/ g for cisco flesh, 3 ng/ g for lake trout flesh, 348 ng/ g for ooligan flesh (which in this assessment will be used for cod, smelt, and herring), 10 ng/ g for polar bear flesh, 391 ng/ g for beluga whale blubber, 7 ng/ g for eider flesh, 1 ng/ g for goose flesh, 4 ng/ g for gull eggs, and 10 ng/ g preserved soapberries. Multiplying the maximum HCH concentration in the traditional food by the harvest amount (converted to grams/ person/ day) results in the exposure to HCH from the traditional food item. Multiplying the residue concentration by the appropriate traditional food amount for each community would result in an estimated exposure to lindane from the consumption of traditional food. Within each community, the individual exposures are then summed for a total exposure to lindane in traditional food.

Summing the exposures from the subsistence food sources in Community 1 (highest total exposure of the three communities) amounts to an exposure to total HCH of 282,065 ng/ day. When converted to mg/ day this exposure becomes 0. 282065 mg/ day. The total HCH exposure of 0.282065 mg/ day must be adjusted by the factor of 0.03 or 0.15 (since lindane represents between 3 and 15 % of total HCH residues) to obtain the lindane only exposure yielding a lindane exposure for Community 1 of 0. 0039  0. 04231 mg/ day. This value must be divided by the weight of an adult male/ female in kilograms for comparison to the chronic Population Adjusted Dose (cPAD). The units of the cPAD are mg/ kg body weight/ day. The cPAD for lindane is 0.0016 mg/ kg body weight/ day. Dividing 0.04231 (assuming lindane is 15% of total HCH) mg/ day by 70 kg (male weight) would result in an exposure of 0. 0006 mg/ kg/ day. Comparing this exposure to the lindane cPAD of 0.0016 mg/ kg body weight/ day reveals that the exposure of the male Indigenous People to lindane is 38 % cPAD and thus, would be below HED's level of concern. The range of lindane dietary risk estimates for adult males resulting from subsistence food consumption is 3 % to 38 %. Dividing 0. 04231 mg/ day by 60 kg (female weight) would result in an exposure of 0.0007 mg/ kg/ day. Comparing this exposure to the lindane cPAD of 0.0016 mg/ kg body weight/ day reveals that the exposure of the female Indigenous People to lindane is 44 % cPAD and thus, would be below HED's level of concern. The range of lindane 5 dietary risk estimates for adult males resulting from subsistence food consumption is 4 % to 44 %. The adult intake amounts from each of the three communities were adjusted by a factor of 0.53 to incorporate the difference in subsistence meat intake between children and adults 1 .These adjusted child intake amounts were then multiplied by the respective HCH residue amount to derive a total HCH exposure from each subsistence meat source. The total HCH residue amount was then multiplied by 0. 03 and 0.15 to obtain the lindane residue amount. The lindane residue amount was then divided by 10 kg (weight of child 1 6 years old), and then by 0. 0016 (cPAD) to obtain the % cPAD which was occupied by the lindane exposure from subsistence foods (Table 3). The range of lindane dietary risk estimates for children resulting from subsistence food consumption is 13 % to 138 %. For children 7 12 years old, the lindane residue amount was divided by 29 kg (weight of child 7 12 years old), and then by 0. 0016 (cPAD) to obtain the % cPAD which was occupied by the lindane exposure from subsistence foods (Table 4). The range of lindane dietary risk estimates for children resulting from subsistence food consumption is 4 % to 48 % of the cPAD.

Table 1. Lindane: Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Dietary Risk Assessment.

EXPOSURE SCENARIO DOSE (mg/ kg/ day) ENDPOINT STUDY TYPE/ MRID Chronic Dietary NOAEL= 10 ppm (0. 47 mg/ kg/ day)

UF = 100 FQPA = 3X LOAEL is 100 ppm (4. 81 mg/ kg/ day) periacinar hepatocyte hypertrophy, increased liver/ spleen weight, and increased platelets Chronic Feeding and Carcinogenicity in Rats 41094101 41853701 42891201 Chronic RfD = 0. 0047 mg/ kg/ day Chronic Population Adjusted Dose (cPAD) = 0. 0016 mg/ kg/ day cPAD = RfD/ FQPA Safety Factor. 6 Table 2. Community Harvest of Traditional Foods and total HCH residues.

Traditional Food Total HCH Residues (ng/ g) Community 1 Harvest (grams/ person/ day) Community 2 Harvest (grams/ person/ day) Community 3 Harvest (grams/ person/ day)

Polar Bear 10 9 26 16 Seal 215 39 500 46 Whale 391 697  271 Walrus 20  22 315 Caribou 1 123 103 221 Moose 9  81 Muskox 2 13

Dall Sheep 4 20

Salmon 26 28 116 Arctic Char 6  10 Lake Trout 3 100

Arctic Grayling 3 6  6 Whitefish 20  14 19 Cod Residue from flesh used

348 ng/ g  18 ooligan Smelt  10 17 Herring  22 Cisco 1 39 8 19 Goose 1 14 15 14 Duck 7  12 Berries 10  15 Total HCH Exposure 282,065 ng/ day 130,045 ng/ day 128,879 ng/ day 7 Table 3. Assumed Total Dietary Intake of Lindane (gamma HCH) and Estimated Risk for Indigenous Children 16 yrs. old.

%TotalHCHwhichis Lindane Community 1 (mg/ kg/ day)/% cPAD a Community 2 (mg/ kg/ day)/% cPAD Community 3 (mg/ kg/ day)/% cPAD 3% Lindane 0. 00045/ 28 0.00021/ 13 0.00021/ 13 15% Lindane 0. 0022/ 138 0.0010/ 65 0.0010/ 65 a Example calculation: Exposure = 0. 282 mg/ day * 0. 15 or 0. 03 * 0. 53 / 10 kg = 0. 0022 mg/ kg/ day (15% lindane) or 0.00045 mg/ kg/ day (3% lindane).

Table 4. Assumed Total Dietary Intake of Lindane (gamma HCH) and Estimated Risk for Indigenous Children 712 yrs. old.

%TotalHCHwhichis Lindane Community 1 (mg/ kg/ day)/% cPAD a Community 2 (mg/ kg/ day)/% cPAD Community 3 (mg/ kg/ day)/% cPAD 3% Lindane 0. 0002/ 10 0.00007/ 4 0. 00007/ 4 15% Lindane 0. 0008/ 48 0.0004/ 22 0.0004/ 22 a Example calculation: Exposure = 0. 282 mg/ day * 0. 15 or 0. 03 * 0. 53 / 29 kg = 0. 0008 mg/ kg/ day (15% lindane) or 0.0002 mg/ kg/ day (3% lindane).

Table 5. Assumed Total Dietary Intake of Lindane (gamma HCH) and Estimated Risk for Indigenous Adult Males.

%TotalHCHwhichis Lindane Community 1 (mg/ kg/ day)/% cPAD a Community 2 (mg/ kg/ day)/% cPAD Community 3 (mg/ kg/ day)/% cPAD 3% Lindane 0. 00012/ 8 0. 000056/ 3 0. 000055/ 3 15% Lindane 0. 00060/ 38 0.00028/ 17 0.00027/ 17 a Example calculation: Exposure = 0. 282 mg/ day * 0. 15 or 0. 03 / 70 kg = 0. 0006 mg/ kg/ day (15% lindane) or 0.0001 mg/ kg/ day (3% lindane).

Table 6. Assumed Total Dietary Intake of Lindane (gamma HCH) and Estimated Risk for Indigenous Adult Females.

%TotalHCHwhichis Lindane Community 1 (mg/ kg/ day)/% cPAD a Community 2 (mg/ kg/ day)/% cPAD Community 3 (mg/ kg/ day)/% cPAD 3% Lindane 0. 00014/ 9 0. 000065/ 4 0. 000064/ 4 15% Lindane 0. 00071/ 44 0.00033/ 20 0.00032/ 20 a Example calculation: Exposure = 0. 282 mg/ day * 0. 15 or 0. 03 / 60 kg = 0. 0007 mg/ kg/ day (15% lindane) or 0.0001 mg/ kg/ day (3% lindane). 8 Table 7. Assumed Total Dietary Intake of Lindane (gamma HCH) and Estimated Risk.

Population Subgroup Body Weight (kg) Estimated Lindane Exposure (mg/ kg/ day) %cPAD Adult male 70 0. 000055  0. 0006 3 38 Adult female 60 0. 000064  0. 00071 4 44 Children (1 6 yrs) 10 0. 0002  0. 0022 13 138 Children (7 12 yrs.) 29 0. 00007 0.0008 4 48 References:

1 Heller, C., 1966. Meat Consumption at Three Northern Eskimo Villages. Environment of the Cape Thompson Region, Alaska. Wilimovsky, Norman, & Wolfe, John, Editors. United States Atomic Energy Commission. pp. 1109 1111.

cc : Chem F, Chron F. Morton RDI: Team: 3/ 27/ 01; SVH: 4/ 17/ 02 TM, Thurston Morton, Rm. 816D CM2, 305 6691, mail code 7509C


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11516-11517]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05285]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9975-36-Region 2]

Proposed CERCLA Cost Recovery Settlement Regarding the Universal
Oil Products Superfund Site, East Rutherford, New Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (``CERCLA''),
notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(``EPA''), Region 2, of a proposed cost recovery settlement agreement
pursuant to CERCLA between EPA and Honeywell International Inc.
(``Settling Party'') regarding the Universal Oil Products Superfund
Site, East Rutherford, New Jersey (``Site''). Pursuant to the proposed
cost recovery settlement agreement, the Settling Party will pay
$161,352.00 to resolve the Settling Party's civil liability under
Section 107(a) of CERCLA for certain past response costs.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement agreement is available for public
inspection at EPA's Region 2 offices. To request a copy of the proposed
settlement agreement, please contact the EPA employee identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. van Itallie, Assistant
Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Regional Counsel, Region 2, 290 Broadway--17th Floor, New York, New
York 10007-1866. Email: [email protected]. Telephone: (212)
637-3151.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 30 days following the date of
publication of this notice, EPA will receive written

comments concerning the proposed cost recovery settlement agreement.
Comments to the proposed settlement agreement should reference the
Universal Oil Products Superfund Site, U.S. EPA Index No. CERCLA-02-
2018-2002. EPA will consider all comments received during the 30-day
public comment period and may modify or withdraw its consent to the
settlement agreement if comments received disclose facts or
considerations that indicate that the proposed settlement agreement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. EPA's response to comments will
be available for public inspection at EPA's Region 2 offices located at
290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866.

    Dated: February 12, 2018.
John Prince,
Acting Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2018-05285 Filed 3-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 163 (Thursday, August 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43805-43806]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18133]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0494; FRL-9998-79-OECA]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Tips
and Complaints Regarding Environmental Violations (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``Tips and Complaints Regarding
Environmental Violations'' (EPA ICR No. 2219.06, OMB Control No. 2020-
0032), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing
so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the
proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed
extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through January 21,
2020. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 21, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-
2009-0494, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Le Desma; Legal Counsel
Division; Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training;
Environmental Protection Agency, Building 25, Box 25227, Denver Federal

Center, Denver, CO 80025; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(303) 462-9075; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) 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; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) 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. 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. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: EPA tips and complaints web form is intended to provide
an easy and convenient means by which members of the public can supply
information to EPA regarding suspected violations of environmental law.
The decision to provide a tip or complaint is entirely voluntary and
use of the webform when supplying a tip or complaint is also entirely
voluntary. Tippers need not supply contact information or other
personal identifiers. Those who do supply such information, however,
should know that this information may be shared by EPA with appropriate
administrative, law enforcement, and judicial entities engaged in
investigating or adjudicating the tip or complaint.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Respondents are expected to be
members of the general public as well as employees of any company
subject to federal environmental regulation. There is no specific
industry or group of industries about which EPA expects tips or
complaints.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 1,431 per month (total).
    Frequency of response: generally, a one-time response.
    Total estimated burden: 8,586 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $343,165 (per year), includes no annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is an increase of 3,443 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase reflects the fact that tips and
complaints are being filed at a higher rate as the website becomes more
widely known, a strong indication of the success of this program. There
has been no change in the information being reported or the estimated
burden per respondent.

    Dated: August 13, 2019.
Henry Barnet,
Director, Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training.
[FR Doc. 2019-18133 Filed 8-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P