I.	TITLE:  Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP) Mitigation

II.	DATE OF ISSUANCE:

III.	PURPOSE:  To establish the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) policy on the negotiation and adoption of avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and compensation measures to address adverse effects to the natural and human environment, including cultural and historic resources.

IV.	SCOPE AND AUDIENCE:  This Policy is applicable to all FEMA offices and programs, including grant programs, and to recipients of FEMA grant assistance. Its scope is limited to mitigation that is related to FEMA's environmental planning and historic preservation (EHP) review process.

V.	AUTHORITY:

       National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.;
       Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA, 40 C.F.R. 1500
       		et seq.;
       FEMA Environmental Considerations Regulations, 44 C.F.R. 10 et seq.;

VI.	REFERENCES:

       Environmental Planning Program, DHS Directive 023-01;
       Historic Preservation in Asset Management, DHS Directive 017-01;
       Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
       	5121 et seq.;
       Executive Order 12127  -  Federal Emergency Management Agency;
       Executive Order 12148  -  Federal Emergency Management;
       National Flood Insurance Act, as amended, 42 U.SC. 4001 et seq.;
       National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.;
       National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.;
       Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Section 106 Regulations, 36 C.F.R. Part 800;
       Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA, 40 C.F.R. Part 1500;
       FEMA Environmental Considerations Regulations, 44 C.F.R. Part 10;
       Executive Order 11514  -  Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality, as amended by Executive Order 11991  -  Relating to Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality;
       Executive Order 11988  -  Floodplain Management;
       Executive Order 11990  -  Protection of Wetlands;
       Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands Regulations, 44 CFR Part 9;
       Executive Order 12114  -  Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions;
       Executive Order 12898  -  Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations;
       Executive Order 13089  -  Coral Reef Protection;
       Executive Order 13112  -  Invasive Species;
       Executive Order 13158  -  Marine Protected Areas;
       Executive Order 13175  -  Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments;
       Farmland Protection Policy Act, 7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.;
       Farmland Protection Policy Act Regulations, 7 C.F.R. Part 658;
       Coastal Barriers Resources Act, 15 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.;
       Coastal Barriers Resources Act Regulations, 44 C.F.R.Part 206 Subpart J;
       Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.;
       Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.;
       Executive Order 13186  -  Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds;
       Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.;
       Interagency Cooperation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 50 C.F.R. Part 402;
       Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.;
       Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 176(c);
       Determining Conformity of Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans, 40 C.F.R. Part 93;
       Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.;
       Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.;
       Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition For Federal and Federally Assisted Programs, 49 C.F.R. Part 24;
       Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments, 44 C.F.R. Part 13;
       Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.;
       Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.;
       Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.;
       Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; and
       Innocent Landowners, Standards for Conducting All Appropriate Inquiries Regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 312.

VII.	DEFINITIONS:

       Actions where FEMA has full control  -  Activities undertaken by FEMA where the agency has full control over the planning, selection of alternatives, decisionmaking, and implementation (i.e. non-grant). These include but are not limited to: issuance of regulations, issuance of policies, issuance of guidance, operations, tasks under mission assignments, construction of FEMA facilities, actions at FEMA facilities, FEMA planned and implemented exercises, provision of temporary housing, staging, etc.

       Avoidance measures  -  Measures that, if taken, would avoid impacts to or adverse effects of a project on an environmental or historic resource. These measures include design changes, changes in the project's schedule, low-impact stipulations, and establishment of buffer zones. Avoidance measures may include voluntary measures to avoid triggering the consultation requirements of an EHP law or authority.

       Best management practices (BMPs)  -  Well-accepted structural or non-structural guidelines, techniques or practices that avoid, limit, or assist in the management of the potential impacts of a construction or development project. BMPs are typically imposed in the permits process as a condition of obtaining a permit.

       Compensation measures  -  Measures that compensate for the loss of a particular resource. Compensation may be made to another agency that has primary responsibility or regulatory authority over the impacted resource. Compensation measures include alternate treatment measures developed to address adverse effects to historic properties under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

       EHP mitigation  -  Measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for an action's impacts that are negotiated during or result from FEMA's environmental planning and historic preservation review process. These include, but are not limited to:

         * Treatment measures established through the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 consultation process;
         * Reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs), reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs), terms and conditions, and conservation recommendations established through the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation process;
         * Minimization and mitigation measures established through the eight-step process required under 44 CFR Part 9  -  Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands;
         * Mitigation measures established through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process under 44 CFR 10.12(c).

       EHP monitoring  -  Conditions placed on the project for the monitoring of construction or operation activities or the monitoring of EHP resources to avoid adverse effects from the project.

       EHP permits  -  Federal, State, Tribal, and local permits associated with environmental planning or historic preservation requirements. EHP permits include, but are not limited to the following: Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit for dredging or filling waters of the United States; Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) Section 10 permit; CWA Section 401 certification; CWA Section 402 permit (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)); floodplain building permits; air quality permits; ESA Section 10 permits, etc.

       EHP requirement  -  The applicable EHP law, Executive Order, regulation, or mandate protecting a resource, triggers FEMA compliance, and which may necessitate the negotiation and adoption of EHP mitigation.

       EHP review process  -  A process that integrates the evaluation of the applicability of the various Federal environmental planning and historic preservation laws, regulations, and executive orders (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Endangered Species Act, Executive Order 11988  -  Floodplains Management, Executive Order 11990  -  Protection of Wetlands [44 CFR 9]) to a FEMA action/undertaking, and the determination of any analysis or steps required to meet the applicable requirements. FEMA's EHP reviews include scoping, identification of alternatives, impact analysis, resource and regulatory agency consultation, public involvement, final determination, and documentation associated with the resolution of impacts (e.g. Memoranda of Agreement, Programmatic Agreements, Biological Opinions, etc.).

       EHP resource agency  -  Federal, State, Tribal, or local government agency charged with the protection or preservation of an environmental resource or historic property; charged with the oversight of the statutory or regulatory framework protecting an environmental resource or historic property; or charged with a consultation role under an EHP requirement. Examples of EHP resource agencies include: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (regulatory division), State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, etc.

       Feasible  -  capable of being done and carried out.

       Minimization measures  -  measures that reduce the impact to or from the resource to the maximum extent practical.

       Programmatic EHP mitigation  -  EHP mitigation measure(s) established for a group of projects or actions, for the implementation of a program, or for a complex project or action.

       Practicable  -  Capable of being done and carried out within existing legal, financial, and administrative (including program) constraints.

       Project-specific EHP mitigation  -  EHP mitigation measure(s) established for one project or action.

       Reasonable  -  Of an appropriate degree or kind. Section IX D. of this policy provides the factors to consider when determining reasonableness.

VIII.	RESPONSIBILITIES:

       A. The FEMA Administrator shall:

             1.	Ensure FEMA programs and offices consider EHP mitigation when carrying out the agency's mission and implementing actions/projects; and
             2.	Plan, program, and budget for EHP mitigation.

       B.	The FEMA Regional Administrators shall:

             1.	Ensure FEMA regional programs consider EHP mitigation when carrying out the agency's mission and implementing actions/projects; and
             2.	Plan, program, and budget for EHP mitigation.

       C.	The FEMA program or office sponsoring the proposed action/project, in coordination with the Office of Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation when appropriate, shall:

   For actions/projects where FEMA has full control (non-grant projects):

             1.	Obtain any required permits;
             2.	Identify and incorporate EHP mitigation into the proposed action/project;
            3.   Comply with the conditions and EHP mitigation established through the EHP review process;
      4.   Comply with conditions and BMPs established by the permitting process; and
            5.   Develop monitoring plans and engage in monitoring activities.

         For FEMA grant-funded actions/projects:

             1.	Assist applicants, grantees, subgrantees or eligible entities in identifying the EHP requirements triggered by their proposed projects and the potential EHP mitigation that may affect project design;
             2.	Assist applicants, grantees, subgrantees or eligible entities with the development of monitoring plans and ensure monitoring requirements are met;
             3.	Provide notice to grantees of possible consequences for FEMA grant projects that are not in compliance with agreed-upon EHP mitigation; and
             4.	Initiate enforcement actions in accordance with 44 CFR 13.43 for FEMA grant projects that have received a non-compliance notice and have not come into compliance.

       D.	The Office of Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation, and in particular the appropriate Regional Environmental Officer (REO), the Deputy REO, or their support staff of EHP Specialists, shall:

             1.	Enter into consultation with EHP resource agencies pursuant to Federal EHP requirements;
             2.	Provide technical assistance and guidance to the FEMA program or office sponsoring an action/project, including for the development of EHP mitigation measures and monitoring plans, to help ensure they meet their EHP compliance responsibilities put forth in Section VIII. C.; and
             3.	Provide technical assistance and guidance, in coordination with the FEMA program or office sponsoring the action/project, to applicants, grantees, subgrantees or eligible entities, including for the development of EHP mitigation measures and monitoring plans, to help ensure they meet their EHP compliance responsibilities put forth in Section VIII. E.

      E.  If required by the grant program guidance, the Applicant or Grantee for FEMA Assistance shall:

            1.   Provide EHP information to the FEMA program or office sponsoring the action/project;
            2.   Identify and incorporate EHP mitigation into the proposed FEMA grant project when feasible;
         3.   Budget for EHP mitigation;
            4.   Provide subgrantees and/or eligible entities with technical assistance and guidance on the EHP requirements triggered by their proposed projects and the potential EHP mitigation that may affect project design;
         5.   Obtain any required Federal, State, Tribal, or local permits;
            6.   When a subgrantee or eligible entity, other than the grantee, is involved, ensure it obtains appropriate Federal, State, Tribal, or local permits;
            7.   Ensure compliance with the project conditions and EHP mitigation established through FEMA's EHP review process;
            8.	Ensure compliance with conditions and BMPs established by the permitting process;
            9.   Provide notice to subgrantees of possible consequences for FEMA grant projects that are not in compliance with agreed-upon EHP mitigation;
         10. Apprise FEMA of any non-compliance with agreed-upon EHP mitigation;
            11. Develop monitoring plans and carry out monitoring activities for projects that have agreed-upon EHP monitoring requirements;
            12. Apprise FEMA of any non-compliance with agreed-upon EHP monitoring; and
            13. Ensure the project comes into compliance after the issuance of a non-compliance notice.

IX.	POLICY

      A. Avoidance measures are the preferred method of EHP mitigation. Only when avoidance cannot be achieved because it is not feasible, practicable, or reasonable, may FEMA consider minimizing, rectifying, or compensating for the impacts of the action, in that particular order.

      B. Compensation may be considered first when FEMA or another Federal agency has established a compensation program for the loss of the impacted resource.

      C. To the extent practicable, FEMA and/or the grantee will incorporate the EHP mitigation in the project's scope of work. The EHP review process should evaluate the impacts or adverse effects of the whole project, including the agreed upon EHP mitigation.

      D. In negotiating EHP mitigation with EHP resource agencies, FEMA will consider the following factors to determine if the EHP mitigation is reasonable:

             1.              Future value that is added by the EHP mitigation measure to the resource, project, FEMA, or the grantee. This includes consideration of the geographic extent of the benefits received (local, State, Region);
             2.              Legal sufficiency of the EHP mitigation measure;
             3.              Costs of the mitigation compared to the costs of the project;
             4.              Ease of implementation;
             5.              Timing for implementation;
             6. Availability of financial and administrative resources to implement the measure;
             7. Level of adverse impacts to the protected resource without EHP mitigation;
             8. Type of EHP requirement triggered;
             9. Potential for net benefit to the EHP resource affected; and
             10.Uniqueness of the EHP resource affected.

      E. FEMA will consider the following factors in determining whether programmatic EHP mitigation may be adopted:

           1.              The particular EHP requirement allows for programmatic mitigation.
           2.              There are clear efficiencies that will be achieved through programmatic EHP mitigation when compared to project-specific EHP mitigation. In evaluating the efficiencies, the reviewer must consider:
                   a. Fiscal (i.e. costs for the project);
                   b. Benefits to the affected resource; and
                   c. Time of negotiation or implementation.
           3.              The program cost eligibility requirements and financial principles allow for programmatic EHP mitigation.

      F. As specified in the grant award, recipients of FEMA grant assistance are responsible for ensuring that their projects comply with the agreed upon EHP mitigation and any EHP monitoring requirements. Grantees, as specified in the grant award, are also responsible for ensuring that subgrantees, or eligible entities, comply with agreed upon EHP mitigation and any EHP monitoring requirements.

X.	SUPERSESSION:  None. This is a new Policy.

   XI.       REVIEW DATE:  This Policy will not automatically expire, but will be substantively reviewed on or before five years of the date of issuance.

XII.	QUESTIONS: For questions regarding this Policy, contact: Office of Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

                  ______________________
                  Sandra K. Knight, PhD, PE
                  Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 198 (Friday, October 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62405-62406]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22367]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 349-157]

Alabama Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing
and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Non-Project Use of Project Lands and
Waters.
    b. Project No.: 349-157.
    c. Date Filed: July 21, 2022, as supplemented on September 23,
2022.
    d. Applicant: Alabama Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project is located on the
Tallapoosa River (Lake Martin), in Tallapoosa, Elmore, and Coosa
counties, Alabama, and occupies federal land administered by the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management; the non-project use is located in Elmore
County.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Unzell Kelley, Alabama Power Company at (205)
517-0885 or [email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Shana High at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests: November
7, 2022.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose,

Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-349-157. Comments emailed to Commission staff are not
considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: Alabama Power Company is requesting
Commission authorization to permit Russell Lands, Inc. to expand
Kowaliga Marina. As proposed, Kowaliga Marina would include 13 docks
that would accommodate 258 boats and 45 personal watercraft, two
forklift piers, a boat ramp, four breakwaters, a seawall, and riprap.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
[email protected], for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: October 7, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-22367 Filed 10-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Table 5b. Bioaccumulation of Copper by Saltwater Organisms Species Chemical Concentration in Water ( µ g/ L) Salinity ( g/ kg) Duration Days Tissue BCF or BAF Reference Polychaete worm,

Phyllodoce maculata Copper sulfate 40 FSWb 35 Whole body 2,500 McLusky and Phillips 1975 Polychaete worm,

Neanthes arenaceodentata Copper nitrate 40 31 28 Whole body 2,950 Pesch and Morgan 1978 Polychaete worm,

Eudistylia vancouveri Copper chloride 6 30.4 29 Body ( less radioles) 1,006 Young et al. 1979 Blue mussel ( 0.45 cm),

Mytilus edulis Copper chloride 3 25 550 Soft tissue 7,730 Calabrese et al. 1984 Blue mussel ( 0.45 cm),

Mytilus edulis Copper chloride 7.9 25 550 Soft tissue 4,420 Calabrese et al. 1984 Blue mussel ( 0.45 cm),

Mytilus edulis Copper chloride 12.7 25 550 Soft tissue 5,320 Calabrese et al. 1984 Mussel ( 6.02 6.34 cm),

Mytillus galloprovincialis Field study 0.285 37 38 266 Soft tissue 3,263 Martincic et al. 1992 Mussel ( 6.02 6.34 cm),

Mytillus galloprovincialis Field study 0.446 37 38 266 Soft tissue 2,491 Martincic et al. 1992 Mussel ( 6.02 6.34 cm),

Mytillus galloprovincialis Field study 0.203 37 38 266 Soft tissue 4,384 Martincic et al. 1992 Mussel ( 6.02 6.34 cm),

Mytillus galloprovincialis Field study 0.177 37 38 266 Soft tissue 4,915 Martincic et al. 1992 Bay scallop ( 5.12 6.26 cm),

Argopecten irradians Copper chloride 4.56 29 32 56 Muscle 185 Zaroogian and Johnson 1983 Bay scallop ( 5.12 6.26 cm),

Argopecten irradians Copper chloride 4.56 29 32 56 Viscera 3,816 Zaroogian and Johnson 1983 Pacific oyster,

Crassostrea gigas Field study 25.45  32 Soft tissue 34,600 Han and Hung 1990 Pacific oyster,

Crassostrea gigas Field study 9.66  32 Soft tissue 57,000 Han and Hung 1990 Pacific oyster,

Crassostrea gigas Field study 10.37  32 Soft tissue 33,400 Han and Hung 1990 Atlantic oyster,

Crassostrea virginica Field study 25 31 140 Soft tissue 27,800 Shuster and Pringle 1968 Soft shell clam,

Mya arenaria Field study 100 31 35 Soft tissue 790 Shuster and Pringle 1968 a Results are based on copper, not the chemical. 56 Table 5b. Bioaccumulation of Copper by Saltwater Organisms Species Chemical Concentration in Water ( µ g/ L) Salinity ( g/ kg) Duration Days Tissue BCF or BAF Reference b FSW= Full Strength Seawater. 57


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 81 (Monday, April 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 23342]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09520]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-2616-004; ER10-2618-002; ER10-2619-002; ER11-
4398-001; ER11-4400-001; ER10-2617-002; ER10-2613-002; ER10-2585-002.
    Applicants: Dynegy Marketing and Trade, LLC, Dynegy Danskammer,
L.L.C., Dynegy Kendall Energy, LLC, Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC,
Dynegy Power Marketing, LLC, Ontelaunee Power Operating Co., LLC,
Sithe/Independence Power Partners, L.P., Casco Bay Energy Company, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to July 8, 2013 Notice of Change in Status
of Dynegy Inc. MBR subsidiaries.
    Filed Date: 4/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20140418-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/9/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1740-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Western Farmers Electric
Cooperative and ITC Great Plains, LLC Designee Qualification and
Novation Service Agreement No. 1814 of Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Filed Date: 4/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20140418-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/9/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1741-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of executed Wholesale Market
Participation Agreement of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 4/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20140418-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/9/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1742-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service Company submits tariff filing
per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Rate Schedule No. 272--APS and Western
Construction Agreement--Saguaro to be effective 6/18/2014.
    Filed Date: 4/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20140418-5167.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/9/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:
    Docket Numbers: ES14-35-000.
    Applicants: Consumers Energy Company.
    Description: Application for Authority to Issue Securities of
Consumers Energy Company.
    Filed Date: 4/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20140418-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/9/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 18, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-09520 Filed 4-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79966-79969]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32191]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76677; File No. SR-FINRA-2015-055]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Provide FINRA with Authority To Grant
Exemptions from TRACE Reporting Requirements for Certain ATS
Transactions

December 17, 2015.
    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 8, 2015, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') 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 FINRA. FINRA has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-controversial'' rule
change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\3\ which
renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the
Commission. 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to adopt new FINRA Rule 6732 to provide FINRA
with authority to exempt certain transactions by a member alternative
trading system (``ATS'') that meet specified criteria from the
transaction reporting obligations under FINRA Rule 6730. In addition,
FINRA is proposing a conforming change to FINRA Rule 9610 to specify
that FINRA has exemptive authority under proposed Rule 6732.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Rule 6730 (Transaction Reporting) generally requires that each
FINRA member that is a party to a transaction in a TRACE-Eligible
Security \4\ report the transaction to TRACE within the period of time
prescribed in the rule. ``Party to a transaction'' means an introducing
broker-dealer, if any, an executing broker-dealer or a customer.\5\
Thus, in transactions in a TRACE-Eligible Security between members,
each member is a party to the transaction and is required to report the
transaction. An ATS is a party to a transaction in a TRACE-Eligible
Security occurring through its system and has a TRACE transaction
reporting obligation, unless an exception or exemption applies.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 6710(a) provides that a ``TRACE-Eligible Security'' is
a debt security that is United States dollar-denominated and issued
by a U.S. or foreign private issuer, and, if a ``restricted
security'' as defined in Securities Act Rule 144(a)(3), sold
pursuant to Securities Act Rule 144A; or is a debt security that is
U.S. dollar-denominated and issued or guaranteed by an Agency as
defined in paragraph (k) or a Government-Sponsored Enterprise as
defined in paragraph (n). ``TRACE-Eligible Security'' does not
include a debt security that is: issued by a foreign sovereign, a
U.S. Treasury Security as defined in paragraph (p), or a Money
Market Instrument as defined in paragraph (o).
    \5\ ``Customer'' includes a broker-dealer that is not a FINRA
member.
    \6\ See Regulatory Notice 14-53 (November 2014) (FINRA Reminds
ATSs and ATS Subscribers of Their Trade Reporting Obligations in
TRACE-Eligible Securities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 28, 2012, FINRA adopted Rule 6731 (Exemption from Trade
Reporting Obligation for Certain Alternative Trading Systems) to
provide FINRA with authority to exempt ATSs from TRACE trade reporting
obligations under certain circumstances; specifically, where the ATS
demonstrates that: member subscribers are fully disclosed to one
another at all times on the ATS; the system does not permit automatic
execution (and a member subscriber must take affirmative steps beyond
the submission of an order to agree to a trade with another member
subscriber); the trade does not pass through any ATS account (and the
ATS does not in any way hold itself out to be a party to the trade);
and the ATS does not exchange TRACE-Eligible Securities or funds on
behalf of the member subscribers or take either side of the trade for
clearing or settlement purposes (including, but not limited to, at DTC
or otherwise), or in any other way insert itself into the trade.\7\ In
addition, trades on the ATS must be between subscribers that are both
FINRA members. Where a Rule 6731 exemption is granted, the ATS is not
deemed a party to the transactions occurring through its system for
purposes of trade reporting requirements.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66513 (March 5,
2012), 77 FR 14454 (March 9, 2012) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of File No. SR-FINRA-2012-016) (``Rule 6731
Proposal'').
    \8\ FINRA stated in the Rule 6731 Proposal that an ATS that
satisfies all the conditions of the proposal has a more limited
involvement in the trade execution than the member subscribers and,
therefore, the exemption from trade reporting is appropriate. As a
condition to the proposed [sic] Rule 6731 exemption, the ATS and its
member subscribers must acknowledge and agree in writing that the
ATS is not deemed a party to the trade for purposes of trade
reporting, and that trades shall be reported to FINRA in accordance
with Rule 6730 by each member subscriber that satisfies the
definition of ``party to a transaction,'' as defined in Rule 6710.

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

    FINRA believes it is appropriate to propose a rule change to
provide FINRA with authority to exempt trades on ATSs not otherwise
falling within the exemption in Rule 6731 from the Rule 6730 trade
reporting obligations. Pursuant to the proposed exemption, an ATS would
not be required to report exempted transactions occurring on the ATS to
TRACE, but rather, would be permitted to provide to FINRA on a monthly
basis, or such other basis as prescribed by FINRA, data relating to
each exempted trade occurring on the ATS. Each side of a trade for
which an ATS is exempted from TRACE reporting pursuant to the proposal
must be reported by a member (other than the ATS) that meets the
definition of a ``Party to a Transaction'' identifying a contra-party
(other than the ATS).
    The proposal would permit FINRA to exempt a member ATS from
reporting trades where: (a) The trade is between FINRA members, (b) the
trade does not pass through any ATS account; (c) the ATS does not
exchange TRACE-Eligible Securities or funds on behalf of the
subscribers or take either side of the trade for clearing or settlement
purposes (including, but not limited to, at DTC or otherwise), or in
any other way insert itself into the trade; and (d) the ATS has entered
into a written agreement with each member that is a ``Party to a
Transaction'' with respect to any trade for which the ATS is exempted
under this Rule, specifying that trades must be reported by such party
pursuant to Rule 6730(c)(13) identifying the trade as having occurred
on the ATS (using the ATS's separate MPID obtained in compliance with
Rule 6720(c)).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ An ATS granted an exemption pursuant to the proposal would
continue to be deemed a ``party'' to the transactions covered by the
exemption, and would be required to remit to FINRA a transaction
reporting fee. Specifically, member ATSs will be assessed a
transaction reporting fee for each exempted transaction occurring
through its system. Such fee will be assessed to the ATS once per
exempt transaction, and will be calculated based upon the fee
schedule set forth in Rule 7730(b)(1) for each exempt sell
transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unlike the exemption provided for under Rule 6731 (where, if
granted, all transactions occurring on the ATS are exempted from TRACE
reporting), proposed Rule 6732 would provide FINRA authority to grant
exemptions only for transactions that meet the enumerated criteria,
which provides a greater degree of flexibility to member ATSs seeking
an exemption. In addition, the proposed exemption omits two of the
conditions required for relief under Rule 6731--specifically, that
member subscribers must be fully disclosed to one another at all times
on the ATS, and that the system does not permit automatic execution and
a member subscriber must take affirmative steps beyond the submission
of an order to agree to a trade with another member subscriber. Thus,
proposed Rule 6732 contemplates that an ATS may have a greater degree
of involvement in exempted trades than contemplated by existing Rule
6731.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Where an ATS has been granted an exemption under the
proposed rule, the member subscribers will be assessed the Trading
Activity Fee under FINRA By-Laws, Schedule A, Section 1. The ATS
will not be assessed such fees with respect to any exempted trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In lieu of reporting through TRACE, proposed Rule 6732 would
include a similar requirement to that contained in Rule 6731 in that it
would require the periodic reporting of transaction information by any
member ATS granted relief. Specifically, under the proposed exemption,
an ATS would be required to provide FINRA with data relating to each
exempted trade that occurred on its system (on a monthly basis or such
other basis as prescribed by FINRA). FINRA will publish the required
items of trade data information, the frequency of the reporting
requirement, if different than monthly, and mode of transmission in a
separate Regulatory Notice.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As is the case with Rule 6731, proposed Rule 6732 also
provides that an ATS's failure to report required data to FINRA
pursuant to Rule 6732, in addition to constituting a violation of
FINRA rules, will result in revocation of any exemption granted
pursuant to proposed Rule 6732. Similar to Rule 6731, volume in
exempted trades occurring through the ATS would be considered volume
of the ATS for purposes of, among other things, the recordkeeping
requirements of Rule 302 of SEC Regulation ATS and determining
whether the ATS triggers the Fair Access requirements under Rule
301(b)(5) of Regulation ATS or the Capacity, Integrity and Security
of Automated Systems requirements of Rule 301(b)(6) of Regulation
ATS, as applicable. See Rule 6731; see also 17 CFR 242.300-303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change will simplify
compliance for member ATSs and other members. Specifically, where an
ATS does not exchange TRACE-Eligible Securities or funds on behalf of
the subscribers, take either side of the trade for clearing or
settlement purposes (including, but not limited to, at DTC or
otherwise), or in any other way insert itself into the trade, and where
the trade does not pass through any ATS account, the proposal provides
FINRA with authority to allow ATSs (and member subscribers) to
streamline their trade reporting practices.
    In some cases, member subscribers trading on an ATS may prefer to
program their back-end systems automatically to clear against the
contra-party identified on TRACE trade reports. Thus, reporting against
the contra-party member subscriber, rather than the ATS, would simplify
clearance and settlement for such members. However, because, under
FINRA rules, an ATS generally is deemed a party to each trade occurring
through its system, Rule 6730 currently precludes member subscribers
from reflecting a party other than the ATS on TRACE trade reports, even
where the ATS has not inserted itself into the trade.
    For example, today, where a member (BD 1) sells a TRACE-Eligible
Security to another member (BD 2) through an ATS, Rule 6730 generally
requires BD 1 to report a sale to the ATS and the ATS to report a buy
from BD 1. The ATS also must report the corresponding sale to BD 2, and
BD 2 must report its buy from the ATS.\12\ Pursuant to the proposed
exemption, where granted, an ATS would not be required to report the
transactions with BD 1 and BD 2 to TRACE. In addition, BD 1 would be
required to report to TRACE a sale to BD 2, identifying the trade as
having occurred on the ATS, and BD 2 would be required to report to
TRACE a buy from BD 1, identifying the trade as having occurred on the
ATS on its TRACE report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In transactions between members, FINRA disseminates only
the sale transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, FINRA believes that the proposed rule change will
simplify compliance for these member ATSs and their member subscribers
without compromising public transparency in exempted trades, because
the exempted transaction will continue to be trade reported by members
and disseminated in accordance with existing rules.\13\ In addition,
the requirement that any ATS granted an exemption pursuant to proposed
Rule 6732 enter into a written agreement with each member that is a
``Party to a Transaction'' with respect to exempted trades, ensures
that reporting members are aware that the ATS has been granted a Rule
6732 exemption and that exempted trades on the ATS are subject to
different reporting requirements, specifically, that the reporting
member identify a party other than the ATS as its contra-party and
identify the ATS on which the trade had occurred in its TRACE reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ FINRA also is proposing a conforming change to Rule 9610 to
add proposed Rule 6732 to the list of rules pursuant to which FINRA
has exemptive authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. The implementation date of the proposed rule change will
be July 18, 2016.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions

of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\14\ which requires, among other
things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change will simplify
compliance for certain ATSs and their member subscribers by permitting
subscribers to trade report with the party against which it will clear
the trade. The proposal also accommodates a broader range of ATS
models. FINRA also notes that public transparency with respect to
exempted trades will not be compromised because such transactions will
continue to be trade reported by members and disseminated in accordance
with existing rules.

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Any ATS that meets the criteria
set forth in the proposed rule may apply for the exemption with respect
to eligible transactions occurring on its platform. In addition,
irrespective of an ATS's model or whether the ATS is granted an
exemption pursuant to this proposal, all ATSs that are a ``party to a
transaction'' must continue to pay transaction reporting fees with
respect to Rule 6732 exempted transactions. As stated above, any ATS
granted a Rule 6732 exemption would continue to be deemed a ``party''
to the transactions covered by the exemption, and would be required to
remit to FINRA a transaction reporting fee based on the fee schedule
set forth in Rule 7730(b)(1) for each exempted sell transaction
occurring through the ATS.
Economic Impact Assessment
Need for the Rule
    As discussed above, an ATS is a party to a transaction in TRACE-
eligible securities occurring on that ATS. As such, an ATS is
responsible to report the transaction to FINRA as provided in Rule
6730, unless an exception or exemption applies.
    FINRA recognizes that there are different business models for the
way an ATS may facilitate trading on its platform, and the functional
role of the ATS may differ in each of these models. For instance FINRA
is aware that some ATS's do not pass TRACE-eligible securities or funds
through their own accounts as part of an execution. In instances where
the functional activities of the ATS are more limited with respect to a
transaction, FINRA believes that the ATS, while still party to the
transaction, may benefit from a streamlined reporting regime without
reducing public transparency.
Economic Baseline
    By FINRA rule today, all ATSs are parties to transactions in TRACE-
eligible securities occurring on the ATS and are subject to TRACE
reporting. Rule 6731 provides FINRA authority to exempt an ATS from
Rule 6730 TRACE transaction reporting requirements where an ATS meets
the conditions in Rule 6731 described above. Thus, an ATS that does not
meet the conditions of Rule 6731 is required to report transactions
occurring on the ATS to TRACE in accordance with FINRA rules.
Economic Impacts
    FINRA estimates that only a small number of ATSs would be eligible
to seek the exemption based on staff understanding of their current
business models, although the proposed exemption would be available to
any current or future ATS that would meet the requirements. Member
subscribers who execute trades on an ATS that seeks and is granted the
proposed exemption also may be impacted. FINRA does not have a reliable
estimate for the number of transactions that might be eligible for the
exemption.
Benefits of the Rule
    Any ATS that meets the qualifications proposed in this rule may
request exemption from FINRA. Where granted, the ATS would presumably
reduce its compliance costs by shifting from contemporaneous reporting
of transactions to TRACE in TRACE-eligible securities to periodic
reporting.
Costs of the Rule
    An ATS that seeks and is granted an exemption under this proposed
rule may incur costs to modify its systems, and must update its
policies and procedures to reflect reporting consistent with the
periodic regime. Each ATS may determine independently whether or not it
seeks to obtain the exemption, and thus, it is likely that an ATS would
only seek this exemption where it was less costly than meeting its
current reporting requirements.
    FINRA understands that a commenter to a related filing indicated
that transactions in TRACE-eligible securities occurring on some ATSs
are ``given up'' to the broker-dealer counterparties for TRACE
reporting.\15\ Notwithstanding this comment, the reporting obligations
to the ATS remain, so any costs to an ATS associated with this proposal
should be measured from the baseline of that obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71341 (January 17,
2014), 79 FR 4213 at 4217 (January 24, 2014) (Order Approving File
No. SR-FINRA-2013-042).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where an ATS seeks and is granted the exemption, member subscribers
who transact through the ATS also may incur costs associated with
reporting the additional information to FINRA that identifies the ATS
where the trade occurred. These costs may include additional
programming and testing along with updating policies and procedures.
FINRA notes, however, that member subscribers may determine where to
seek executions and would not have to incur the related costs if they
choose to send orders elsewhere for execution.
    Both member subscribers and ATSs may incur additional costs
associated with creating and maintaining a written agreement with
respect to the reporting of any trades for which the ATS is exempted
under the proposed rule.
Related Economic Impacts
    FINRA also considered the potential impacts of the proposed rule on
investors and other parties that might rely on TRACE reporting. As
proposed, the rule would not negatively impact FINRA's ability to
monitor securities markets. The proposed rule would not substantively
reduce the information collected by FINRA on TRACE-eligible securities
transactions occurring on an ATS. Member subscribers maintain their
obligation to report transactions on the ATS to TRACE within the time
prescribed by FINRA rules. The additional information collected
pursuant to the exemption under the rule would enhance FINRA's ability
to identify all exempted trades occurring on an individual ATS.
Further, the exemption would not impact the quality and completeness of
the information made generally available through TRACE, since TRACE
reporting obligations continue to apply to the member subscribers
transacting on the ATS.
Alternatives Considered
    The primary alternative considered was to continue to have ATS
[sic] with business models meeting the proposed exemptive criteria
continue to report as they do today. However, FINRA concluded that the
proposed exemption

is a reasonable approach that may simplify compliance for some members
without degrading the quality and completeness of information available
to FINRA and the public.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    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) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 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, 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.
FINRA 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 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 No. SR-FINRA-2015-055 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 No. SR-FINRA-2015-055. 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 such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-FINRA-2015-055, and should be
submitted on or before January 13, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32191 Filed 12-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 23696]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08409]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No.: FAA-2022-0031; Summary Notice No.--2022-23]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Robert
Smith

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion nor omission of information in the
summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its
final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before May 10, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2022-0031
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building, Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building, Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
https://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building, Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nia Daniels,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.

    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Timothy R. Adams,
Deputy Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2022-0031.
    Petitioner: Robert Smith.
    Sections of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  121.423(a)(3) and
121.436(c).
    Description of Relief Sought: Mr. Robert Smith petitions for an
exemption from Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Sec. Sec.
121.423(a)(3) and 121.436(c) that would allow Mr. Smith to use military
second-in-command experience in lieu of military pilot-in-command
experience for air carrier time credit permitted by Sec.  121.436(c).

[FR Doc. 2022-08409 Filed 4-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Average Number of Fishing Days ( avgdfish. sd2)

Average number of seasonal fishing days for freshwater and saltwater fishing by state.

Data Element Definitions FIP  State fips code STATE  State name AVGFW  Average number of freshwater fishing days per season AVGSW  Average number of saltwater fishing days per season


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 199 (Friday, October 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71169-71170]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24927]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket Nos. FMCSA-2008-0362 and FMCSA-2006-26367]

Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) and Medical
Review Board (MRB) Meetings: Public Meetings

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Announcement of advisory committee public meetings.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces a joint meeting of its Motor Carrier Safety
Advisory Committee (MCSAC) and Medical Review Board (MRB) on Monday,
October 24, 2016. Together, the MCSAC and MRB will receive an update on
the Driver Health and Wellness Initiative, a non-regulatory public-
private partnership of stakeholders to improve drivers' health, and a
preview of its Web page. The MRB will report on its revised
recommendations on obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) based on its
evaluation of the comments from the joint Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) that the Agency issued with the Federal Railroad
Administration. Additionally, the MCSAC will discuss how the
implementation of these recommendations may impact current and future
populations of drivers. On October 25, the MCSAC will meet separately
to complete its review of the Agency's regulatory guidance and the MRB
will meet to discuss how to incorporate recently issued warnings from
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on narcotics and
benzodiazepines. The meetings are open to the public for their
entirety.

DATES: The joint meeting will be held on Monday, October 24, 2016, from
9:15 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Time (E.T.). On Tuesday, October 25, the
MCSAC and MRB will meet separately. Copies of all task statements and
an agenda for the entire meeting will be made available in advance of
the meeting at http://mrb.fmcsa.dot.gov and http://mcsac.fmcsa.dot.gov.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will take place at the National Association of
Homebuilders (NAHB), 1201 Fifteenth Street NW., Washington, DC 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Shannon L. Watson, Senior Policy
Advisor, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
(202) 366-5221<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For information on
facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request
special assistance at the meeting, contact Eran Segev at (617) 494-
3174<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by Wednesday, October 19.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

MCSAC

    Section 4144 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU, Pub. L. 109-
59, 119 Stat. 1144, August 10, 2005) required the Secretary of
Transportation to establish the MCSAC. The Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century Act (MAP-21, Pub. L. 112-141) reauthorized the MCSAC
through September 30, 2013, at which time its statutory authority
expired, necessitating the establishment of MCSAC as a discretionary
committee under FACA. Secretary Foxx established that effective
September 30, 2013, through September 30, 2015. MCSAC provides advice
and recommendations to the FMCSA Administrator on motor carrier safety
programs and regulations, and operates in accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA, 5 U.S.C. App 2).
    The MCSAC began considering Task 16-1, Review of Regulatory
Guidance, at its June 2016 meeting to provide recommendations to the
Agency concerning implementation of section 5203 of the FAST Act to:
(1) Prioritize regulatory guidance that should be incorporated into the
safety regulations to promote clear, consistent, and enforceable rules;
(2) identify regulatory guidance that appears to be inconsistent with
the intent of the safety regulations or makes enforcement of key safety
requirements difficult; and (3) identify guidance that should remain in
place.
    Additionally, the MCSAC and MRB began considering Joint Task 15-3,
on Driver Health and Wellness, at its joint meeting in September 2015.
The task is to provide recommendations to the Agency on the structure,
content, and methods for determining the effectiveness of a public-
private partnership to promote commercial motor vehicle (CMV) driver
wellness. To reach that goal, the MCSAC and MRB chairmen appointed a
joint subcommittee that included members of both advisory committees
and stakeholders.

MRB

    Section 4116 of SAFETEA-LU requires the Secretary of
Transportation, with the advice of the MRB and the chief medical
examiner, to establish, review, and revise ``medical standards for
operators of commercial motor vehicles that will ensure that the
physical condition of operators of commercial motor vehicles is
adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely.'' The MRB
operates in accordance with FACA under the terms of its charter, filed
November 25, 2013.
    At its meeting in August 2016, the MRB began consideration of Task
16-1, which is to provide recommendations to the Agency on the
disposition of comments from medical professionals and associations to
the Agency's and the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on safety-sensitive rail and
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers with moderate to severe
Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA).

II. Meeting Participation

    Oral comments from the public will be heard throughout the meeting,
at the discretion of the MCSAC and MRB chairmen. Members of the public
may submit written comments on the topics to be considered during the
meeting by Wednesday, October 19, to Federal Docket Management System
(FDMC) Docket Number FMCSA-2008-0362 for the MRB and FMCSA-2006-26367
for the MCSAC using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., E.T. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued on: October 7, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-24927 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 207 (Thursday, October 25, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 65151]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26286]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0721; FRL-9745-3]

Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call
for California State Implementation Plan Revision; South Coast;
Reopening of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is reopening the public comment period for a proposal
published in the Federal Register on September 19, 2012. In that
action, in response to a remand by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
and pursuant to the Clean Air Act, EPA proposed to find that the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Los Angeles-South
Coast Air Basin (South Coast) is substantially inadequate to comply
with the obligation to adopt and implement a plan providing for
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard. If EPA finalizes this proposed
finding of substantial inadequacy as proposed, California would be
required revise its SIP to correct these deficiencies within 12 months
of the effective date of our final rule. Two commentors requested an
extension of the comment period for this proposed rulemaking. EPA is
now reopening the public comment period.

DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published on September
19, 2012 (77 FR 58072) is reopened. Comments must be received on or
before November 8, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2012-0721, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or deliver: Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise
protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be
submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA
will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide
it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly
to EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included
as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site and in hard
copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California
94105. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Mail Code AIR-2, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA published a proposed rule on September
19, 2012 (77 FR 58072). In that action, in response to a remand by the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and pursuant to the Clean Air Act, EPA
proposed to find that the California State Implementation Plan (SIP)
for the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin (South Coast) is
substantially inadequate to comply with the obligation to adopt and
implement a plan providing for attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard.
If the action is finalized as proposed, California would be required
revise its SIP to correct these deficiencies within 12 months of the
effective date of our final rule. Written comments on the proposed rule
were to be submitted to EPA on or before October 19, 2012. Two
commentors requested an extension of the comment period for this
proposed rulemaking. EPA is now reopening the public comment period for
the September 19, 2012, 1-hour ozone SIP call for California for the
South Coast area proposed rulemaking for fourteen days.

    Dated: October 17, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2012-26286 Filed 10-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 126 (Thursday, June 30, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42506]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15506]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 100 and 165

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0556]

Madison Regatta, Inc./Madison Regatta, Madison, IN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations and a
safety zone for the Madison Regatta for all waters of the Ohio River,
beginning at mile marker 555.0 and ending at mile marker 560.0,
Madison, IN. These actions are necessary to protect persons, property,
and infrastructure from potential damage and safety hazards associated
with a regatta taking place on the Ohio River. During the enforcement
period, deviation from the regulations or safety zone is prohibited
unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Ohio
Valley or a designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.801, Table 1, Sector Ohio Valley,
No. 16 and 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, Sector Ohio Valley, No. 52 will be
enforced from July 1 through July 3, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Caloeb Gandy, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the special
local regulations listed in 33 CFR 100.801, Table 1, Sector Ohio
Valley, No. 16, and the safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1,
Sector Ohio Valley, No. 52 during the Madison Regatta as follows:

July 1, 2016 from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
July 2, 2016 from 7:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m.
July 3, 2016 from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR part 100 and 33 CFR part 165, a
vessel may not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission
from the COTP Ohio Valley or a designated representative. Spectator
vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not
anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of race participants or
official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other
Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this
regulation.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C.
552 (a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with
extensive advance notification of the enforcement periods for these
regulations via the Local Notice to Mariners (LNM) and Broadcast Notice
to Mariners (BNM).

R.V. Timme,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2016-15506 Filed 6-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66269-66271]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21065]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2023 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1207; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00925-R;
Amendment 39-22533; AD 2023-17-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Leonardo S.p.a. Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters. This AD was
prompted by a report of an electrical failure of a starter-generator
caused by a ruptured drive shaft. This AD requires visually inspecting
the drive shaft of an affected starter-generator and depending on the
results, performing a dye penetrant inspection. Depending on the
results of the dye penetrant inspection, this AD requires replacing the
starter-generator, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference (IBR). The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 1, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 1,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No.FAA-2023-1207; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information, 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.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For EASA material incorporated by reference in this final
rule, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; internet
easa.europa.eu. You may find the EASA material on the EASA website at
ad.easa.europa.eu.
     You may view this service information at the FAA, Office
of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. The EASA material is
also available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1207.
    Other Related Service Information: For Leonardo Helicopters service
information identified in this final rule, contact Leonardo S.p.A.,
Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G. Agusta 520, 21017 C.
Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone (+39) 0331-225074; fax (+39)
0331-229046; or at customerportal.leonardocompany.com/en-US/. You may
also view this service information at the FAA contact information under
Material Incorporated by Reference above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hal Jensen, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone
(303) 342-1080; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2022-0148, dated July 14, 2022 (EASA
AD 2022-0148), to correct an unsafe condition for Leonardo S.p.A. Model
A119 and AW119MKII helicopters.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Leonardo S.p.a.
Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on June 9, 2023 (88 FR 37810). The NPRM was prompted
by a report of an electrical failure of a starter-generator, caused by
a ruptured drive shaft, which was not detected by the generator control
unit and caused partial loss of battery power. The NPRM proposed to
require visually inspecting the drive shaft of an affected starter-
generator and depending on the results, performing a dye penetrant
inspection. Depending on the results of the dye penetrant inspection,
the NPRM proposed to require replacing the starter-generator, as
specified in EASA AD 2022-0148. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent
electrical failure of the starter-generator, which could result in
complete loss of electrical power and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

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

Conclusion

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2022-0148 requires a one-time inspection of the drive shaft
of the affected starter-generator and, depending on findings, replacing
the affected part with a serviceable part as defined therein. EASA AD
2022-0148 also requires reporting the inspection results (including no
findings) to Leonardo and implementing improved removal and
reinstallation procedures for the starter-generator.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Leonardo Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No.

119-121, dated June 21, 2022. This service information specifies
procedures for performing visual and dye penetrant inspections and for
replacing a starter-generator.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    Service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-0148 does not
specify a compliance time to proceed with subsequent procedures if
there is misalignment or if the alignment is not clear, whereas this AD
requires proceeding with those subsequent procedures before further
flight.
    Service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-0148 specifies
contacting LH [Leonardo Helicopters] spare management to send a
starter-generator directly to an authorized repair station for repair
and sending a starter-generator directly to an authorized repair
station for repair, whereas this AD does not require those actions.
    EASA AD 2022-0148 specifies reporting inspection results to
Leonardo, whereas this AD does not.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 136 helicopters of U.S.
registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on
these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this AD.
    Visually inspecting a starter-generator drive shaft will take about
1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and $11,560 for
the U.S. fleet.
    If required, dye-penetrant inspecting a starter-generator drive
shaft will take about 3 work-hours for an estimated cost of $255 per
helicopter.
    If required, replacing a starter-generator will take about 2 work-
hours and parts will cost about $11,500 for an estimated cost of
$11,670 per helicopter.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

AD 2023-17-07 Leonardo S.p.a.: Amendment 39-22533; Docket No. FAA-
2023-1207; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00925-R.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective November 1, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Leonardo S.p.a. Model A119 and AW119 MKII
helicopters, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2435, Starter-
Generator.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of an electrical failure of a
starter-generator that was caused by a ruptured drive shaft. The
failure was not detected by the generator control unit and caused
partial loss of battery power. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent
electrical failure of the starter-generator, possibly due to
incorrect installation or removal. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could result in complete loss of electrical power and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply
with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency EASA AD 2022-
0148, dated July 14, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0148).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0148

    (1) Where EASA AD 2022-0148 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2022-0148 requires compliance in terms of
flight hours, this AD requires using hours time-in-service.
    (3) Where paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2022-0148 states to,
``inspect the drive shaft;'' for this AD, replace that text with,''
inspect the drive shaft for misalignment and a crack.''
    (4) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-
0148 specifies to proceed with subsequent procedures if there is
misalignment or if the alignment is not clear; for this AD, proceed
with those subsequent procedures before further flight.
    (5) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-
0148 states, ``with reference to Annex A, perform a liquid penetrant
inspection of the drive-shaft, in order to detect the presence of
eventual cracks;'' for this AD, replace that text with ``With
reference to Annex A, perform a dye penetrant inspection of the
drive-shaft in order to detect any cracks.''
    (6) Where the service information referenced in paragraph (1) of
EASA AD 2022-0148 specifies contacting LH [Leonardo Helicopters]
spare management to send a starter-generator directly to an
authorized repair station for repair and sending the starter-
generator to an authorized repair station for repair, this AD does
not require those actions.
    (7) Where paragraphs (2) and (4) of EASA AD 2022-0148 state,
``Part II of the ASB;'' for this AD, replace that text with, ``AMP
Data Modules 19-A-24-30-04-00A-520A-A, Starter Generator-Remove
Procedure and 19-A-24-30-04-00A-720A-A, Starter Generator-Install
Procedure, each Issue 001 and dated May 24, 2021. Except where AMP
Data Module 19-A-24-30-04-00A-520A-A Starter Generator-Remove
Procedure specifies discarding parts, for this AD, remove those
parts from service.''
    (8) This AD does not require paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0148.

    (9) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2022-0148.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-0148
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR
21.197 and 21.199, provided they are restricted to visual flight
rules (VFR) with night operations prohibited and no passengers are
onboard.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Hal Jensen, Aviation
Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference 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) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0148,
dated July 14, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2022-0148, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; internet easa.europa.eu. You may find the EASA
material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on August 22, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-21065 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P