From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Wednesday, July 12, 2023 3:48 PM
To:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: Coke Ovens Modeling Files

David  -  Since you specifically asked for the HEM4 model files, I am sending it to you by email, as a courtesy, because the EPA web page is down right now and has been down most of today. The file is a 1 MB zip file, so I hope it gets through with this email. If not, the file should be posted with the model file on the subpart 5C NESHAP page very soon. https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-pushing-quenching-and-battery-stacks-national-emission)
.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, July 7, 2023 4:16 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Hansen, Amanda<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Moeller, Michael<EMAIL_ADDRESS>French, Chuck<EMAIL_ADDRESS>'GABRIELLE RAYMOND'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Coke Ovens Modeling Files

Hello again, Donna Lee.  Thanks again for providing the model file Access database file for our review.

Would it be possible for the HEM4 model input files to be posted to the website as they were in 2021?  If those are not readily available, we understand that there is a tool to convert the Access database to the HEM4 model file format.  Would it be possible to post the tool as the public does not have access to it?

Thanks, DCA

David C. Ailor, P.E.
President
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone (Cell):<PHONE_NUMBER>
eFax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.accci.org

<< HEM4 Inputs Coke Ovens Pre-Proposal Risk Modeling.zip available at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-pushing-quenching-and-battery-stacks-national-emission >>


[Federal Register: September 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 185)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48863-48865]
[DOCID:fr25se09-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0506; FRL-8962-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Determination of Clean Data for the 1997
Fine Particulate Matter Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is determining that the Johnstown (Cambria and Indiana
Counties), Lancaster (Lancaster County), Reading (Berks County), and
York (York County), Pennsylvania nonattainment areas for the 1997 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) have clean data for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on September 25,
2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0506. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal
business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Effect of This Action?
III. When Is This Action Effective?
IV. What Is EPA's Final Action?
V. What Are the Statutory and Executive Order Reviews?

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is determining that the Johnstown, Lancaster, Reading, and York
nonattainment areas have clean data for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS. This determination is based upon quality assured, quality
controlled and certified ambient air monitoring data that show the area
has monitored attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based on
the 2006-2008 data. In addition, quality controlled and quality assured
monitoring data submitted during the calendar year 2009, which are
available in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database, but not yet
certified, show that these areas continue to meet the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Other specific requirements of the determination and the rationale
for EPA's proposed action are explained in the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) published on July 31, 2009 (74 FR 38158) and will not
be restated here. No public comments were received in response to the
NPR.

II. What Is the Effect of This Action?

    This final action, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1004(c), suspends
the requirements for these areas to submit attainment demonstrations,
associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further
progress plans, contingency measures, and other planning state
implementation plans (SIPs) related to attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS for so long as these areas continue to meet the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

III. When Is the Action Effective?

    EPA finds that there is good cause for this approval to become
effective on the date of publication of this action in the Federal
Register, because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the
nature of the approval. The expedited effective date for this action is
authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rule
actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the
rule ``grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction''
and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30
days after publication ``as otherwise provided by the agency for good
cause found and published with the rule.'' As noted above, this
determination of attainment suspends the requirements for the
Johnstown, Lancaster, Reading, and York, Pennsylvania PM2.5
nonattainment areas to submit an attainment demonstration, associated
reasonably available measures, a reasonable further progress plan,
contingency measures, and any

other planning SIPs related to attainment of the standard for so long
as these areas continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The
suspension of these requirements is sufficient reason to allow an
expedited effective date of this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). In
addition, these nonattainment areas' suspension from these requirements
provide good cause to make this rule effective on the date of
publication of this action in the Federal Register, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed
in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to
adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect.
Where, as here, the final rule suspends requirements rather than
imposing obligations, affected parties, such as the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, do not need time to adjust and prepare before the rule
takes effect.

IV. What Is EPA's Final Action?

    EPA is determining that the Johnstown, Lancaster, Reading, and
York, Pennsylvania nonattainment areas have clean data for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. This determination is based upon quality
assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data
showing that these areas have monitored attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2006-2008 data. This final action,
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1004(c), will suspend the requirements for
these areas to submit attainment demonstrations, associated reasonably
available control measures, reasonable further progress plans,
contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for so long as each of these areas
continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

V. What Are Statutory and Executive Order Reviews?

A. General Requirements

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

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 24, 2009. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action, pertaining to the determination of clean data for
the 1997 fine particulate matter standard for the Johnstown, Lancaster,
Reading, and York, Pennsylvania PM2.5 nonattainment areas,
may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter.

    Dated: September 15, 2009.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. Section 52.2059 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2059  Control strategy: Particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (d) Determination of Clean Data. EPA has determined, as of
September 25, 2009, the Johnstown (Cambria and Indiana Counties),
Lancaster (Lancaster County), Reading (Berks County) and York (York
County), Pennsylvania nonattainment areas have clean data for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. This determination, in accordance with 40 CFR
52.1004(c), suspends the requirements for these areas to submit an
attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available measures, a
reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and other
planning SIPs related to attainment of the standard for as long as
these areas

continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

[FR Doc. E9-23057 Filed 9-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 173)]
[Notices]
[Page 52827-52829]
[DOCID:fr07se06-94]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54394; File No. 4-523]

Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to
Rule 17d-2; Order Approving and Declaring Effective a Plan for
Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Between NYSE Arca, Inc. and
the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.

August 31, 2006.
    Notice is hereby given that the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') has issued an Order, pursuant to Sections 17(d) \1\
and 11A(a)(3)(B) \2\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),
granting approval and declaring effective a revised amended and
restated plan for the allocation of regulatory responsibilities
(``Plan'') \3\ that was filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act \4\
by NYSE Arca, Inc.\5\ (``NYSE Arca'') and the National Association of
Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'') (together with the NYSE Arca, the
``Parties'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(3)(B).
    \3\ On January 20, 2006, the Parties submitted an amended and
restated 17d-2 plan for review and approval by the Commission. On
July 25, 2006, the Parties submitted a revised amended and restated
plan (``Plan''), which was noticed for public comment. See infra
note 13.
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
    \5\ NYSE Arca, Inc. was formerly called the Pacific Exchange,
Inc. (``PCX''). On March 6, 2006, PCX filed with the Commission a
proposed rule change, which was effective upon filing, to change the
name of the PCX, as well as several other related entities, to
reflect Archipelago Holdings, Inc.'s (``Archipelago'') recent
acquisition of PCX and the merger of the New York Stock Exchange,
Inc. with Archipelago. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53615
(April 7, 2006), 71 FR 19226 (April 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, NASD shall assume, in addition to the regulatory
responsibility it has under the Act, the regulatory responsibilities
allocated to it under the Plan. At the same time, NYSE Arca is relieved
of those regulatory responsibilities allocated to NASD under the Plan.

I. Introduction

    Section 19(g)(1) of the Act,\6\ among other things, requires every
self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') registered as either a national
securities exchange or registered securities association to examine
for, and enforce compliance by, its members and persons associated with
its members with the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the
SRO's own rules, unless the SRO is relieved of this responsibility
pursuant to Section 17(d) \7\ or 19(g)(2) \8\ of the Act. Section
17(d)(1) of the Act \9\ was intended, in part, to eliminate unnecessary
multiple examinations and regulatory duplication for those broker-
dealers that maintain memberships in more than one SRO (``common
members'').\10\ With respect to a common member, Section 17(d)(1)
authorizes the Commission, by rule or order, to relieve an SRO of the
responsibility to receive regulatory reports, to examine for and
enforce compliance with applicable statutes, rules, and regulations, or
to perform other specified regulatory functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(1).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(2).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d)(1).
    \10\ See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to Accompany S.
249, S. Rep. No. 94-75, 94th Cong., 1st Session 32 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules:
Rule 17d-1 \11\ and Rule 17d-2 under the Act.\12\ Rule 17d-2 permits
SROs to propose joint plans for the allocation of regulatory
responsibilities, other than financial responsibility rules, with
respect to their common members. Under paragraph (c) of Rule 17d-2, the
Commission may declare such a plan effective if, after providing for
notice and comment, it determines that the plan is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors,
to foster cooperation and

coordination among the SROs, to remove impediments to, and foster the
development of, a national market system and a national clearance and
settlement system, and is in conformity with the factors set forth in
Section 17(d) of the Act. Upon effectiveness of a plan filed pursuant
to Rule 17d-2, an SRO is relieved of those regulatory responsibilities
for common members that are allocated by the plan to another SRO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17d-1. Rule 17d-1 authorizes the Commission to
name a single SRO as the designated examining authority (``DEA'') to
examine common members for compliance with the financial
responsibility requirements imposed by the Act, or by Commission or
SRO rules.
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 2, 2006, the Commission published notice of the Plan
filed by NYSE Arca and NASD.\13\ The Commission received no comments on
the Plan. The Plan is intended to replace and supersede the current
17d-2 plan between NASD and NYSE Arca and all prior amendments thereto
in their entirety,\14\ and is intended to reduce regulatory duplication
for firms that are common members of NYSE Arca and NASD. The text of
the Plan allocates regulatory responsibilities among the Parties with
respect to common members. Included in the Plan is an attachment
(``NYSE Arca Rules Certification for 17d-2 Agreement with NASD,''
referred to herein as the ``Certification'') that lists every NYSE Arca
rule and Federal securities law and rule and regulation thereunder for
which, under the Plan, NASD would bear responsibility for examining,
and enforcing compliance by, common members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54224 (July 27,
2006), 71 FR 43823.
    \14\ The Parties currently operate pursuant to a 17d-2 plan in
which the NASD assumed certain inspection, examination, and
enforcement responsibility for common members with respect to
certain applicable laws, rules, and regulations (the ``current NASD-
NYSE Arca 17d-2 plan''). See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
14095 (October 25, 1977), 42 FR 57198 (November 1, 1977) (File No.
4-267) (notice of 1977 Agreement); 15191 (September 26, 1978), 43 FR
46093 (October 5, 1978) (File No. 4-267) (order granting temporary
approval); 15722 (April 12, 1979), 44 FR 23616 (April 20, 1979)
(File No. 4-267) (extension of time to file amendments); 15941 (June
21, 1979) (File No. 4-267), SEC Docket, Vol. 17, no. 14, page 995
(July 3, 1979) (further extension of time to file required
amendments); 16462 (January 2, 1980), 45 FR 2121 (January 10, 1980)
(File No. 4-267) (order granting temporary approval); 16591
(February 20, 1980), 45 FR 12573 (February 26, 1980) (File No. 4-
267) (notice of 1980 Amendment); 16719 (April 2, 1980), 45 FR 23841
(April 8, 1980) (File No. 4-267) (order granting temporary
approval); and 16858 (May 30, 1980), 45 FR 37927 (June 5, 1980)
(File No. 4-267) (approval order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed Plan is consistent with the
factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act \15\ and Rule 17d-2(c)
thereunder \16\ in that the proposed Plan is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and for the protection of investors, fosters
cooperation and coordination among SROs, and removes impediments to and
fosters the development of the national market system. In particular,
the Commission believes that the proposed Plan could reduce unnecessary
regulatory duplication by allocating to NASD certain responsibilities
for common members that would otherwise be performed by both NYSE Arca
and NASD. Accordingly, the proposed Plan promotes efficiency by
reducing costs to common members. Furthermore, because NYSE Arca and
NASD will coordinate their regulatory functions in accordance with the
Plan, the Plan should promote investor protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d) and 17 CFR 240.17d-2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, under the Plan, NYSE Arca and NASD have
allocated regulatory responsibility for all NYSE Arca rules that are
substantially similar to NASD rules in that NYSE Arca's rule would not
require NASD to develop one or more new examination standards, modules,
procedures, or criteria in order to analyze the application of the
rule, or a dual member's activity, conduct, or output in relation to
such rule (``Common Rules''). These Common Rules are specifically
listed in the Certification.\17\ In addition, the NASD would assume
regulatory responsibility for any provisions of the Federal securities
laws and the rules and regulations thereunder that are set forth in the
Certification.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ NYSE Arca has represented that there are no NYSE Arcarules
that are substantially similar to NASD rules that are not included
in the Certification. See Telephone call between Janet Angstadt,
Acting General Counsel, NYSE Arca, and Richard Holley III, Special
Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on August 24,
2006. Further, the Certification notes that, with respect to several
of the NYSE Arca rules, NYSE Arca will be responsible for any
significant difference between its rule and the comparable NASD
rule, until such time that amendments to such rule(s) may be filed
with and approved by the Commission. NYSE Arca has represented that
it shortly intends to file the proposed rule changes necessary to
conform the entirety of these rules to the corresponding NASD rules.
See id.
    \18\ As proposed currently, there is only one Federal securities
law rule listed on the Certification--Rule 200 of Regulation SHO, 17
CFR 242.200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan further provides that NASD shall not assume regulatory
responsibility, and NYSE Arca will retain full responsibility, for: (1)
Surveillance and enforcement with respect to trading activities or
practices involving NYSE Arca's own marketplace; (2) registration
pursuant to NYSE Arca's applicable rules of associated persons (i.e.,
registration rules that are not Common Rules); (3) NYSE Arca's duties
as a DEA under Rule 17d-1 of the Act; \19\ and (4) any rules of NYSE
Arca that do not qualify as Common Rules, except that NASD shall be
responsible for such rules with respect to any broker-dealer subsidiary
of Archipelago. With respect to broker-dealer subsidiaries of
Archipelago, apparent violations of any NYSE Arca rules by any broker-
dealer subsidiary of Archipelago will be processed by NASD, and NASD
will conduct any enforcement proceedings. The effect of these
provisions is that regulatory oversight and enforcement
responsibilities for Archipelago Securities, L.L.C., which acts as the
outbound router for the NYSE Arca Marketplace, will be vested with
NASD. These provisions should help avoid any potential conflicts of
interest that could arise if NYSE Arca was primarily responsible for
regulating its affiliated outbound router.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 240.17d-1.
    \20\ This provision was a condition in the Commission'sapproval
of a proposed rule change submitted by the PCX (the predecessor to
NYSE Arca) relating to the acquisition of PCX Holdings, Inc. by
Archipelago. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52497
(September 22, 2005), 70 FR 56949 (September 29, 2005) (SR-PCX-2005-
90). In that filing, PCX committed to amend the current NASD-NYSE
Arca 17d-2 plan within 90 days of the Commission's approval of that
filing. The 90-day requirement was subsequently extended three
times. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 52995 (December 21,
2005), 70 FR 77232 (December 29, 2005); 53545 (March 23, 2006), 71
FR 16183 (March 30, 2006); and 54046 (June 26, 2006), 71 FR 37965
(July 3, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Plan, NYSE Arca will perform a review of the
Certification, at least annually, or more frequently if required by
changes in either the rules of NYSE Arca or NASD, to add NYSE Arca
rules not included on the then-current list of Common Rules that are
substantially similar to NASD rules (i.e., new rules that qualify as
Common Rules or existing rules that have been amended so that they now
qualify as Common Rules); delete NYSE Arca rules included in the then-
current list of Common Rules that are no longer substantially similar
to NASD rules (i.e., amended rules that cease to be Common Rules); and
confirm that the remaining rules on the list of Common Rules continue
to be NYSE Arca rules that are substantially similar to NASD rules.
NASD will then confirm in writing whether the rules listed in any
updated list are Common Rules as defined in the Plan. The Commission is
hereby declaring effective and approving a plan that, among other
things, allocates regulatory responsibility to NASD for the oversight
and enforcement of all NYSE Arca rules that are substantially similar
to the rules of the NASD for common members of NYSE Arca and

NASD. Therefore, modifications to the Certification need not be filed
with the Commission as an amendment to the Plan, provided that the
Parties are only adding to, deleting from, or confirming changes to
NYSE Arca rules in the Certification in conformance with the definition
of Common Rules provided in the Plan. However, should NYSE Arca or NASD
decide to add a NYSE Arca rule to the Certification that is not
substantially similar to an NASD rule; delete a NYSE Arca rule from the
Certification that is substantially similar to an NASD rule; or leave
on the Certification a NYSE Arca rule that is no longer substantially
similar to an NASD rule, then such a change would constitute an
amendment to the Plan, which must be filed with the Commission pursuant
to Rule 17d-2 under the Act and noticed for public comment.
    As noted above, NYSE Arca and NASD have also set forth in the
Certification the Federal securities laws, and the rules and
regulations thereunder, for which NASD will bear responsibility under
the Plan for examining, and enforcing compliance by, common members.
The Commission notes that any changes to this list of Federal
securities laws, and the rules and regulations thereunder, would
constitute an amendment to the Plan, which must be filed with the
Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act and noticed for public
comment.
    The Plan also permits NYSE Arca and NASD to terminate the Plan,
subject to notice, for various reasons. The Commission notes, however,
that while the Plan permits the Parties to terminate the Plan, the
Parties cannot by themselves reallocate the regulatory responsibilities
set forth in the Plan, since Rule 17d-2 under the Act requires that any
allocation or re-allocation of regulatory responsibilities be filed
with the Commission.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Commission notes that paragraphs 3 and 13 of thePlan
reflect the fact that NASD's responsibilities under the Plan will
continue in effect until the Commission approves the termination of
the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    This Order gives effect to the Plan filed with the Commission in
File No. 4-523. The Parties shall notify all members affected by the
Plan of their rights and obligations under the Plan.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Sections 17(d) and
11A(a)(3)(B) of the Act, that the Plan in File No. 4-523, between NYSE
Arca and NASD, filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act, is approved
and declared effective.
    It is therefore ordered that NYSE Arca is relieved of those
responsibilities allocated to the NASD under the Plan in File No. 4-
523.
    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant
to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(34).

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-14784 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 107 (Wednesday, June 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32274-32275]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12872]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP14-638-000; Docket No. CP14-125-000; Docket No. CP14-126-
000]

Atmos Energy Corporation v. American Midstream (Midla) LLC,
American Midstream (Midla) LLC, American Midstream (Midla) LLC; Notice
of Intent To Convene Meeting and Setting Dates for Meeting

    On March 24, 2014, in Docket No. RP14-638-000, Atmos Energy
Corporation (Atmos) filed a complaint against American Midstream
(Midla) LLC (Midla) alleging, among other things, that Midla's open
season notice and process violate the requirements of section 7(b) of
the Natural Gas Act. On March 28, 2014, in Docket No, CP14-125-000,
Midla filed an application under section 7(b) of the NGA to abandon
segments of its jurisdictional pipeline that are currently used to
provide service to Atmos, as well as other shippers. Concurrently,
Midla filed a prior notice filing in Docket No. CP14-126-000 requesting
to abandon the remainder of its jurisdictional pipeline by sale to an
affiliate. Midla and Atmos have contacted the Dispute Resolution
Division about alternative dispute resolution (ADR) requesting to
arrange a meeting among Midla, Atmos and other interested parties
regarding the issues raised in these proceedings.
    The Commission's Director of the Dispute Resolution Division will
conduct a meeting on May 29 and May 30, 2014 commencing on May 29 at 10
a.m. in Hearing Room 7 and on May 30 at a time to be determined in
Conference Room 2M-A/B at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC. The meeting will cover the ADR
process. The Dispute Resolution Division will also assist the

parties in better identifying and clarifying the issues in the above-
captioned dockets and in fostering negotiations among the parties to
determine whether agreement using ADR can be achieved. If a party has
any questions and for access to the building, please contact Dispute
Resolution Division, Support Specialist, Sara Klynsma, at (202) 502-
8259.

    Dated: May 22, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-12872 Filed 6-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32036-32037]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14426]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81075; File No. SR-ICEEU-2017-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Amendments to the ICE Clear Europe Finance Procedures

July 5, 2017.
    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 June 21, 2017, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule changes described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been primarily prepared by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear
Europe filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) thereunder,\4\ so that the
proposal was effective upon filing with 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the
ICE Clear Europe Finance Procedures to add Australian dollars (``AUD'')
as a currency eligible for variation margin and settlement payments for
financials and softs contracts in the F&O product category which settle
in that currency.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe 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. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

A. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

i. Purpose
    ICE Clear Europe proposes revising its Finance Procedures to add
AUD as a currency eligible for variation margin and settlement payments
for financials and softs contracts in the F&O product category which
settle in that currency. These revisions do not involve any changes to
the ICE Clear Europe Clearing Rules.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the
meanings specified in the ICE Clear Europe Clearing Rules (the
``Rules'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, ICE Clear Europe proposes to add AUD to the list of
eligible variation margin and settlement currencies for financials and
softs contracts in paragraph 2.1 of the Finance Procedures. Other
conforming changes have been made in paragraphs 4.1(a), (b) and (c) and
4.4(a) of the Finance Procedures. As with the other currencies
currently eligible to be used as variation margin and settlement
payments for financials and softs contracts, AUD will be subject to
haircuts determined pursuant to the Finance Procedures and existing ICE
Clear Europe haircut policies and procedures.
ii. Statutory Basis
    ICE Clear Europe believes that the changes described herein are
consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \6\ and the
regulations thereunder applicable to it, including the standards under
Rule 17Ad-22,\7\ and in particular are consistent with the prompt and
accurate clearance of and settlement of securities transactions and, to
the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts and
transactions, the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody
or control of ICE Clear Europe or for which it is responsible and the
protection of investors and the public interest, within the meaning of
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\8\ The amendments are intended to
revise the Finance Procedures to permit variation margin and settlement
payments to be made in AUD for certain financials and softs contracts
that settle in such currency. In ICE Clear Europe's view, the
amendments will enhance the procedures for settlement of cash variation
margin and settlement payments, and thus promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of cleared financials and softs
contracts. As a result, ICE Clear Europe believes the amendments are
consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act and the
regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed changes to the rules
would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. ICE
Clear Europe is adopting the amendments to the Finance Procedures in
order to permit Clearing Members to provide AUD, on an optional basis,
as variation margin and settlement payments for certain financials and
softs contracts. ICE Clear Europe does not believe the amendments would
materially affect the cost of clearing, adversely affect access to
clearing in these products for Clearing Members or their customers, or
otherwise adversely affect competition in clearing services. As a
result, ICE Clear Europe believes that any impact or burden on
competition from such amendments would be appropriate in furtherance of
the purpose of the Act.

C. Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed changes to the rules have
not been solicited or received. ICE Clear Europe will notify the
Commission of any written comments received by ICE Clear Europe.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii).\10\ ICE Clear
Europe believes that summary effectiveness is warranted with respect to
the proposed rule changes because the proposed amendments effect a
change in an existing service of a registered clearing agency that
primarily affects the operations of the clearing agency with respect to
products that are not securities, including futures that are not
security futures, swaps that are not security-based swaps or mixed
swaps, and forwards that are not security forwards, and does not
significantly affect any securities clearing operations of the clearing
agency or any rights or obligations of the clearing agency with respect
to securities clearing or persons using such securities clearing
service, within the meaning of Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii). Use of AUD will be
limited to

F&O contracts that are financial and softs contracts. As a result, the
proposed changes will not affect the Clearing House's CDS clearing
operations or CDS Clearing Members acting in their capacity as such. In
addition, the proposed amendments will not affect ICE Clear Europe's
financial resources or risk management applicable to the CDS clearing
business. Accordingly, ICE Clear Europe does not believe that the
proposed amendments will have a significant effect on its securities
clearing activity as a registered securities clearing agency or the
rights or obligations of clearing members with respect thereto. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-ICEEU-2017-009 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-ICEEU-2017-009. 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 filings will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Europe
and on ICE Clear Europe's Web site at https://www.theice.com/clear-europe/regulation#rule-filings.
    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-ICEEU-2017-009
and should be submitted on or before August 1, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
 Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-14426 Filed 7-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 130 (Friday, July 6, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31499-31504]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14407]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0583; Product Identifier 2018-NM-019-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-16-
07, which applies to certain Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter,
A330-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes; and Model A340-313
airplanes. AD 2017-16-07 requires inspection of the fuselage bulk cargo
door frames at specific locations, and corrective action if necessary.
Since we issued AD 2017-16-07, it was determined that only airplanes
having certain manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs) are affected by
tartaric sulfuric anodizing (TSA)/chromic acid anodizing (CAA) surface
treatment in the door fitting attachment holes, and that airplanes
having certain MSNs were excluded. This proposed AD is intended to
complete certain mandated programs intended to support the airplane
reaching its limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that
support the established structural maintenance program. This proposed
AD would require new inspections of certain attachment holes for
residual surface treatment and cracking, and corrective action if
necessary; and would provide an optional terminating action for the
inspections. The proposed AD would also revise the applicability to add
certain airplanes and remove others. We are proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 2 Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine, 31700
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45
80; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0583; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0583;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-019-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider
all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed
AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    As described in FAA Advisory Circular 120-104 (http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/120-104.pdf), several programs
have been developed to support initiatives that will ensure the
continued airworthiness of aging airplane structure. The last element
of those initiatives is the requirement to establish a limit of
validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural
maintenance program under 14 CFR 26.21. This proposed AD is the result
of an assessment of the previously established programs by the design
approval holder (DAH) during the process of establishing the LOV for
the affected airplanes. The actions specified in this proposed AD are
necessary to complete certain programs to ensure the continued
airworthiness of aging airplane structure and to support an airplane
reaching its LOV.
    We issued AD 2017-16-07, Amendment 39-18984 (82 FR 41874, September
5, 2017) (``AD 2017-16-07''), for all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200
Freighter, A330-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes; and Model
A340-313 airplanes. AD 2017-16-07 requires inspection of the fuselage
bulk cargo door frames at specific locations, and corrective action if
necessary. AD 2017-16-07 resulted from the discovery of TSA/CAA surface
treatment in certain bulk cargo door frame holes of airplanes with MSNs
0400 and higher. We issued AD 2017-16-07 to detect and correct fatigue
cracks in the bulk cargo door frames, caused by TSA/CAA surface
treatment in certain bulk cargo door frame holes. Cracks in the bulk
cargo door frames can cause the in-flight loss of a bulk cargo door,
damage to the airplane, and subsequent reduced control of the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2017-16-07 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2017-16-07, it was determined that only
airplanes having manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs) 0400 through 1779
are affected by TSA/CAA surface treatment in the door fitting
attachment holes due to fatigue. However, it was also determined that
airplanes having MSN 0001 to MSN 0399 are affected in the same
attachment holes due to a fatigue issue, therefore, the same
inspections must also be accomplished on these airplanes. In addition,
based on inspection results and calculations, Airbus also redefined the
inspection thresholds and intervals. Airbus determined that these
actions should not be required for Model A340-500 and -600 airplanes
because the unsafe condition would only develop beyond the design
service goal of these airplanes. Additionally, Airbus developed an
optional terminating modification.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2018-0005, dated January 10, 2018 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200
Freighter, and A330-300 series airplanes, and Model A340-200 and A340-
300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    In the frame of the certification of the A330 Extended Service
Goal exercise, it was identified that Tartaric Sulfuric Anodising
(TSA) or Chromic Acid Anodising (CAA) surface treatment is present
in some frame holes, from aeroplane MSN [manufacturer serial number]
0400 and later MSN, following production process modification. On
bulk cargo door frames (FR) 67 and FR 69 right hand (RH) side, the
door fitting attachment holes have this TSA or CAA treatment, which
leads to a detrimental effect on fatigue behaviour.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
cracks in the primary structure, possibly resulting in in-flight
loss of a bulk cargo door, consequent decompression and potential
damage to, and reduced control of, the aeroplane.
    To initially address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus
issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A53L012-16 to provide
instructions to inspect the fuselage bulk cargo door frames at
specific locations. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016-0102 [which
corresponds to FAA AD 2017-16-07], requiring repetitive non-
destructive test (rototest and high-frequency eddy-current (HFEC))
inspection or visual detailed (DET) inspections [to detect cracking]
of the affected areas, and, depending on findings, accomplishment of
a repair.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it was determined that only
aeroplanes from MSN 0400 to MSN 1779 are affected by CAA or TSA
surface treatment issue in the door fitting attachment holes.
However, it was also determined that aeroplanes MSN 0001 to MSN 0399
are affected in the same attachment holes due to a fatigue issue,
therefore, the same inspections must also be accomplished on these
aeroplanes. In addition, based on inspection results and
calculation, Airbus redefined inspection thresholds and intervals,
depending on aeroplane type, model and utilisation. Airbus published
SB A330-53-3278 and SB A340-53-4239 providing the inspection
instructions at the specific locations with extended inspection
thresholds and intervals. Airbus also determined that the actions
should not be required for A340-500 and -600 models, as for these
aeroplanes, the unsafe condition would only develop beyond the
Design Service Goal of these aeroplanes. Finally, Airbus developed
modification (mod) 206409 and published associated SB A330-53-3275
and SB A340-53-4238, as applicable, as optional terminating action.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2016-0102, which is superseded, expands the
Applicability and requires redefined repetitive inspections of the
holes at the upper and lower door support fittings of FR 67 and FR
69 RH and the holes at door latch fitting of FR 69 RH. This [EASA]
AD also introduces an optional modification, which constitutes
terminating action for the repetitive inspections as required by
this [EASA] AD.

    The optional modification involves related investigative actions of
eddy current rotating probe testing for cracks of the support fittings
and the frame holes at frame (FR) 67 and FR 69. You may examine the
MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0583.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information.
     Service Bulletin A330-53-3275, dated August 22, 2017.
     Service Bulletin A330-53-3278, dated August 22, 2017.
     Service Bulletin A340-53-4238, dated September 8, 2017.
     Service Bulletin A340-53-4239, dated September 5, 2017.
    Airbus Service Bulletins A330-53-3278 and A340-53-4239 describe
procedures for rototest, HFEC/ultrasonic and detailed inspections for
residual surface treatment and cracking of the upper and lower right-
hand fuselage

bulk cargo door support fitting attachment holes at FR 67 and FR 69 and
the right-hand fuselage bulk cargo door latch fitting attachment holes
at FR 69. Airbus Service Bulletins A330-53-3275 and A340-53-4238
describe procedures for a modification, which includes eddy current
rotating probe testing for cracks of the support fittings and the frame
holes at FR 67 and FR 69, and removal of TSA or CAA in the final holes
of the bulk door frames FR 67 and FR 69. These documents are distinct
since they apply to different airplane models. 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 the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the actions
that are part of the requirements of AD 2017-16-07, this proposed AD
would retain those required actions. Those actions are referenced in
the service information identified above.
    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these
same type designs.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 102 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Action                  Labor cost       Parts cost     Cost per product    Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections and modification...  Up to 40 work-             $5,100  Up to $8,500.....  Up to $867,000.
                                  hours x $85 per
                                  hour = $3,400.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2017-16-07, Amendment 39-18984 (82 FR 41874, September 5, 2017), and
adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2018-0583; Product Identifier 2018-NM-019-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 20, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2017-16-07, Amendment 39-18984 (82 FR 41874,
September 5, 2017) (``AD 2017-16-07'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following Airbus airplanes, certificated
in any category, manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs) 0001 to 1779
inclusive; except airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A330-
53-3275 or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4238 has been embodied.
    (1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -
342, and -343 airplanes.
    (4) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, and -213 airplanes.
    (5) Airbus Model A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD is prompted by a determination that only airplanes
having certain

manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs) are affected by tartaric sulfuric
anodizing (TSA)/chromic acid anodizing (CAA) surface treatment in
the door fitting attachment holes, and that airplanes having certain
MSNs were excluded from AD 2017-16-07. This AD is intended to
complete certain mandated programs intended to support the airplane
reaching its limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that
support the established structural maintenance program. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracks in the bulk
cargo door frames, caused by TSA/CAA surface treatment in certain
bulk cargo door frame holes. Cracks in the bulk cargo door frames
can cause the in-flight loss of a bulk cargo door, damage to the
airplane, and subsequent reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections

    Before exceeding the thresholds specified in table 1 to
paragraph (g) of this AD, or within the applicable time specified in
paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, whichever is later: Do a
rototest, high frequency eddy current (HFEC), ultrasonic, or
detailed inspection, as applicable, for residual surface treatment
and cracking of the upper and lower right-hand fuselage bulk cargo
door support fitting attachment holes at FR 67 and FR 69 and the
right-hand fuselage bulk cargo door latch fitting attachment holes
at FR 69, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3278, dated August 22, 2017, or
Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4239, dated September 5, 2017; as
applicable. Thereafter, depending on the areas and inspection
methods as defined in table 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD, repeat
the inspection at intervals not exceeding those specified in table 3
to paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes having MSN 0001 through 0399 inclusive: Within
200 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) For airplanes having MSN 0400 through 1779 inclusive: Within
800 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JY18.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JY18.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JY18.008

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

(h) Corrective Action

    If any discrepancy is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, repair using a
method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.

(i) Non-Terminating Action for Repairs

    Accomplishment of a repair on an airplane, as required by
paragraph (h) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for
the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that
airplane, unless otherwise specified in repair instructions approved
by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch,
FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(j) Optional Terminating Action

    Accomplishment of the modification, including applicable related
investigative and corrective actions and removal of TSA or CAA in
the final holes of the bulk door frames FR 67 and FR 69, as
applicable, specified in, and in accordance with Airbus Service
Bulletin A330-53-3275, dated August 22, 2017, or Airbus Service
Bulletin A340-53-4238, dated September 8, 2017, as applicable,
constitutes terminating action for the inspections required by
paragraph (g) of this AD for that airplane, unless otherwise
specified in the repair instructions approved by the Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or
Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.

(k) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Airbus All Operators Telex (AOT)
A53L012-16, dated May 30, 2016, or Revision 1, dated March 9, 2017.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Section, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
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.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of
this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions
from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method
approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA; or the EASA; or EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0005, dated January 10, 2018, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2018-0583.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 2 Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine,
31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; internet
http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 22, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-14407 Filed 7-5-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 144 (Friday, July 28, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35099-35101]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15973]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0714]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Ogdensburg Summer Seaway Festival; Saint Lawrence
Seaway, Ogdensburg, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
Saint Lawrence River, Ogdensburg, NY. This safety zone is intended to
restrict vessels from portions of the Saint Lawrence River during the
Ogdensburg Seaway Summer Festival fireworks display on July 28, 2017.
This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels
from the navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display.
Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 28,
2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0714 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
rulemaking, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule. The event sponsor did not submit notice to
the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to
publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a
comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public
interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators
and vessels from the hazards associated with a fireworks display.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register because doing so would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying the
effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring
safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and
vessels in the vicinity of the fireworks display.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a
fireworks display presents significant risks to public safety and
property. Such hazards include premature and accidental

detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This
rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the
fireworks display takes place.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone on July 28, 2017 from 9:45 p.m.
to 10:45 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Saint
Lawrence River; Ogdensburg, NY contained within 420-foot radius of:
44[deg]42'04.4'' N., 075[deg]29'41.3'' W. (NAD 83).
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his
designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his
designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs''), directs agencies to
reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that ``for
every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be
identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be
prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.''
    This rule has not been designated a ``significant regulatory
action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is
exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's
Memorandum titled ``Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the
Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs' '' (February 2, 2017).
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be
relatively small and enforced only during the fireworks display. Also,
the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters.
Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to
transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within the
particular areas are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions,
moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when
permitted by the Captain of the Port.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42

U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that it is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This rule establishes a temporary
safety zone. It is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure
2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction, which pertains to
establishment of safety zones. A Record of Environmental Consideration
(REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where
indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0714 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0714  Safety Zone; Ogdensburg Seaway Summer Festival,
Saint Lawrence River, Ogdensburg, NY.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the
Saint Lawrence River; Ogdensburg, NY contained within a 420-foot radius
of: 44[deg]42'04.4'' N., 075[deg]29'41.3'' W. (NAD 83).
    (b) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced on July
28, 2017 from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo
or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his
behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of
the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: July 25, 2017.
Joseph S. Dufresne,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2017-15973 Filed 7-27-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 188 (Thursday, September 29, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58999]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20983]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 721

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0494; FRL-7584-03-OCSPP]
RIN 2070-AB27

Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances (19-
4.F); Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a final rule in the Federal Register of Monday,
June 27, 2022, concerning significant new use rules (SNURs) under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for chemical substances which were
the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). This document corrects a
typographical error in an amendatory instruction.

DATES: This correction is effective September 29, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Wysong, New Chemicals Division
(7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2022-13338 appearing on page
37999 in the Federal Register of Monday, June 27, 2022 (87 FR 37999
(FRL-7584-01-OCSPP)), the following correction is made to correct a
typographical error in amendatory instruction 2:

0
1. On page 38003, in the third column, in amendatory instruction 2
amending Sec.  9.1, in the fourth and fifth lines, ``721.11404 through
721.11410, and 721.11411'' is corrected to read ``721.11404 through
721.11409, and 721.11411''.

    Dated: September 23, 2022.
Tala Henry,
Deputy Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2022-20983 Filed 9-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P