Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH)

October 11, 2007 Meeting Minutes

Room C-5521, Francis Perkins Building,

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Representatives Attending

Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Chair

Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health

Department of Labor

W. Corey Thompson, Jr., Vice Chair – Labor representative

Safety and Health Specialist

American Postal Workers’ Union, AFL-CIO

Donald G. Bathurst – Federal agency representative

Chief of Administrative Services

Department of Homeland Security

Curtis M. Bowling – Federal agency representative

Director of Environmental Readiness and Safety

Department of Defense

Mr. Ralph E. Dudley – Federal agency representative

General Manager – Safety and Health

Tennessee Valley Authority

Mr. Keith A. Nelson – Federal agency representative

Assistant Secretary for Administration

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Ms. Kathleen J.H. Wheeler – Federal agency representative

Deputy Chief Human Capital Officer

Department of Interior

Mr. Paul Hutter – Federal agency representative

General Counsel and Acting Chief of Human Resources

Department of Veterans Affairs

Ms. Catherine M. Angotti – Alternate federal agency representative

Director, Occupational Health

Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer

NASA

Jose S. Gonzales – Labor representative

Sergeant at Arms

California State Fraternal Order of Police/Empire Lodge II

Mr. Jeff Friday – Alternate labor representative

Counsel

National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU)

Deborah Kleinberg, Esq. - Alternate labor representative

Counsel

Seafarers International Union (SIU)

Mr. William “Chico” McGill – Labor representative

Director, Government Employees Department

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)

Milagro Rodriguez – Labor representative

Occupational Health and Safety Specialist

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO

Also Attending

Diane Brayden – FACOSH Designated Federal Official

Director

OSHA - Office of Federal Agency Programs

Department of Labor

Shelby Hallmark

Director

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

Employment Standards Administration

Department of Labor

Mikki Holmes

OSHA – Office of Federal Agency Programs

Department of Labor

Laura Mills

OSHA - Office of Federal Agency Programs

Department of Labor

Michelle Walker

OSHA - Office of Federal Agency Programs

Department of Labor

Call to Order and Introductions

Chair Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, called the meeting of the Federal
Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH or Council)
to order at 1:11 p.m., October 11, 2007.  He thanked Council members for
their participation and asked FACOSH members and alternates, and other
attendees to introduce themselves.  Mr. Foulke also welcomed the new
FACOSH members:  Ralph Dudley (Tennessee Valley Authority); Paul Hutter
(Veterans Administration); Kathleen Wheeler (Department of the
Interior); Colleen Kelley (NTEU); William “Chico” McGill (IBEW); and
Chester Wheeler (SIU), who was reappointed for a second consecutive
term.

Election of Vice-Chair

Mr. Foulke thanked Mr. Corey Thompson, American Postal Workers Union,
the current Council Vice-Chair, for his service and explained the need
for a new vice-chair for the 2008 calendar year.  He further explained
that the Council’s Articles of Organization required alternating the
position between labor and management members and noted that Mr.
Thompson was a labor representative.  Mr. Foulke stated that he had
accepted Mr. Curtis Bowling’s, Department of Defense (DOD), nomination
for the position and asked for other nominations.  Hearing no other
nominations, Mr. Foulke asked for a voice vote and Mr. Bowling was
elected FACOSH Vice-Chair for calendar year 2008.

Approval of Minutes

Mr. Foulke moved that the Council approve the March 1, 2007 FACOSH
meeting minutes (Exhibit 2*).  The motion was seconded and passed
unanimously.

Updates on Ongoing Activities

Safety, Health, and Return-to-Employment (SHARE) Initiative

SHARE FY 2007 Progress

Mr. Foulke and Shelby Hallmark, Director, Department of Labor (DOL)
Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), conducted a joint
presentation on the Presidential Safety, Health, and
Return-to-Employment (SHARE) Initiative to improve safety and health
among federal employees.  Mr. Foulke called the attendees’ attention
to their copies of the fiscal year (FY) 2006 summary report to the
President (Exhibit 3).  He noted that the Initiative had been extended
for three years, through FY 2009.

During the presentation, Mr. Foulke reported that the SHARE Initiative
established four goals and that OSHA oversees Goals 1 and 2, while OWCP
oversees Goals 3 and 4.  The goals are:

To reduce total injury and illness case rates (TCRs) by at least 3% per
year;

To reduce lost time case rates (LTCRs) by at least 3% per year;

To improve the timely filing of injury and illness notices by at least
5% per year; and

To reduce lost production day rates (LPDRs) by at least 1% per year.

Mr. Foulke pointed out that the SHARE extension would allow the federal
government to build on the improvements of the first three years and
noted that FY 2006 was the first year in which the government had been
successful in meeting all four goals.

For Goal 1, Mr. Foulke reported that the federal government was on track
to meet the goal for FY 2007.  He reported on individual agency goal
achievements and commended the efforts and improvement by the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS).  Mr. Foulke reported similar government-wide
success on Goal 2.

Mr. Hallmark provided information on Goals 3 and 4.  He noted that the
federal government as a whole was on track to exceed Goal 3 in FY 2007,
and that it had met this goal each of the three prior years.  He also
discussed individual agency achievements toward meeting this goal.

With respect to Goal 4, Mr. Hallmark explained that it integrates the
safety and case management areas reflecting both reductions in injuries
and quicker return of employees to work when injury occurs.  Mr.
Hallmark reported that the federal government had made substantial
improvements through the third quarter of FY 2007.  He then discussed
the progress of individual agencies, noting DHS’s significant
improvements.

In concluding the slide presentation, Mr. Hallmark noted that the number
of OWCP claims was at its lowest since the early 1970s.  Mr. Foulke
thanked Mr. Hallmark and opened the floor for questions.

Mr. Chico McGill, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)
noted the absence of information on the Department of Energy (DOE) and
asked about the omission.  Mr. Hallmark confirmed that DOE is included
in the SHARE Initiative and Ms. Diane Brayden, OSHA, stated that leaving
the DOE data out of the slide presentation was likely a matter of
presentation design.

FY 2006 President’s Report

Mr. Foulke explained the Secretary’s statutory responsibility to
provide the President an annual summary on the status of safety and
health among federal Executive Branch agencies.  He then introduced Ms.
Michelle Walker, OSHA, to update the members on the report (Exhibit 4).

Ms. Walker noted that the report had been forwarded to the President on
October 3 and called members’ attention to their copies.  Ms. Walker
explained the organization of the report and then provided specific
information on federal safety and health statistics.  She mentioned the
reductions in injury and illness cases and rates compared to FY 2005,
and the impact of these improvements on the government’s success at
meeting the SHARE total and lost time case rate reduction goals (Goals 1
and 2).  She also noted the increase in overall workers’ compensation
costs which were attributed to increases in the cost of living index and
medical expenditures.

Ms. Walker mentioned that most agencies reported having implemented the
injury and illness recordkeeping requirements under 29 CFR Part 1904,
which took effect for federal agencies on January 1, 2005.  She stated
that agencies which failed to report on their compliance status or which
had not properly implemented the requirements had been contacted to
clarify their recordkeeping responsibilities.  She then briefly
described the various methods agencies reported having established to
track and collate the necessary information.

On the subject of motor vehicle and seatbelt safety, Ms. Walker
described the programmatic and enforcement variations throughout the
government but noted that most agencies reported attempts to ensure safe
vehicle operations.  With respect to field Federal Safety and Health
Councils (FFSHCs), Ms. Walker explained their purpose and gave a brief
overview of federal agency participation, mentioning that a full report
would occur later in the day.

After Ms. Walker summarized the government’s safety and health
performance statistics, the contents of the individual agency reports,
and various graphs and charts, she reported that the agencies had
already received the request for FY 2007 information (Exhibit 5).  Ms.
Walker provided an overview of the information request, called
members’ attention to their copies, and discussed the two agency
report templates.

Mr. Bowling, DOD, and Mr. Paul Hutter, Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) asked about the various report due dates.  Ms. Walker clarified
that agency reports were due to OSHA on January 1 and the President’s
report was due on October 1.

Mr. Foulke thanked Ms. Walker and explained the OSH-related requirements
of several statutes and discussed their relevance to federal agencies.
He then emphasized the importance of employee safety and health and its
value to the government.

FACOSH Recordkeeping Subcommittee

Mr. Foulke explained the purpose of the Subcommittee and noted that Ms.
Milagro Rodriguez, American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE),
and Mr. Richard Williams, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) were the co-chairs.  He then introduced Ms. Mikki Holmes, OSHA to
provide an update on the Subcommittee’s activities.

Ms. Holmes reiterated the Subcommittee’s purpose, noted its meeting
frequency and membership, and then introduced both the voting members
and contributing experts present.  She explained that the group focused
on federal agency strategies injury and illness data collection and
volunteer identification.

Ms. Holmes enumerated the group’s recommendations to OSHA and called
FACOSH members’ attention to their copies of the Subcommittee’s
Statement of Purpose for a database and the group’s meeting minutes
(Exhibits 6 and 7).  Ms. Holmes clarified that the database would be
created from the required recordkeeping forms and be designed to allow:

Injury and illness rate comparison across agencies and job types;

Agencies to generate the required forms;

OSHA to aggregate data at different levels, such as calculating SHARE
Initiative statistics;

OSHA to identify establishments with high injury and illness rates and
develop federal agency training based on types of injuries; and

Other agencies to research the data, compare private and federal
statistics, and calculate rates based on job type.

According to Ms. Holmes, the group had identified four steps in
gathering the information for creating the database and explained the
progress of those steps.  With regard to the specific steps, Ms. Holmes
noted that the first step was for agencies to identify their various
establishments.  She informed FACOSH that OSHA had released a memo
clarifying the definition the term as it applies to the federal sector
and asking agencies to provide a list by January 1, 2008.  Ms. Holmes
noted that the remaining steps include:

Developing a process for data submission,

Testing the submission process and data quality, and

Collecting the data.

Ms. Holmes informed FACOSH that the database implementation would
require a rule change and that OSHA had begun working with its
solicitors toward that end.  Ms. Holmes explained the scope of the
proposed rule change and stated that, in the solicitors’ opinion, such
a change would not require notice or comment periods.  After assuring
the members that the new language would be provided to them, the
Department of Labor’s Policy Planning Board, the Office of Management
and Budget, and other agencies, she opened the floor for questions.

Mr. Hutter, VA, asked about online data submission and Ms. Holmes
clarified that the submission would occur on an annual basis.  Mr. Keith
Nelson, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) asked about including
volunteers and Ms. Holmes provided the rationale and statutory
requirement for such inclusion.

Mr. Donald Bathurst, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), questioned
the various due dates and collection years.  Ms. Diane Brayden, OSHA,
reported that the change in the collection year for the OSHA-related
data was to align with private sector collection requirements.

Mr. Bowling, DOD, asked for a rule change timeline.  Ms. Holmes
responded that the timeline called for completing the change in FY 2008
and implementing the change in FY 2009.

Federal Agency Safety and Health Training

Mr. Foulke introduced Ms. Laura Mills, OSHA, to report on federal agency
safety and health training.  Ms. Mills noted that the Office of Federal
Agency Programs (OFAP) had surveyed agency safety and health officials
to determine the types of OSH training they used and the categories of
employees trained.

According to Ms. Mills, the survey results indicated that
in-house-developed training was the most prevalent.  The preferred
methods of training varied by types of respondents and included
classroom training, audio/video conferencing, and web-based learning.
She further explained that respondents had provided information on the
types of training materials they needed, already had, and were willing
to share.  Ms. Mills called members’ attention to their copies of the
survey summary report (Exhibit 8).  Ms. Mills also reported on plans to
develop a follow-up survey to refine the information on shared training
materials.

As a corollary to the information on the training survey results, Ms.
Mills called members’ attention to the federal agency training week
scheduled for the following month.  She described the course offerings
and provided registration information (Exhibit 9).

Mr. Hutter, VA, asked for clarification on the distinction between the
various electronic forms of training.  Ms. Mills gave a general
explanation based on her understanding and offered to investigate
further.  Mr. Hutter agreed to subsequent email correspondence on the
subject.

Ms. Rodriguez, AFGE, asked for an explanation on the collection of data
in the ‘employee and employee representative’ category.  Ms. Mills
replied that the survey responses had come from agency safety and health
officials.

Mr. Hutter, VA, asked about “collateral duty-specific training” and
Ms. Mills expanded upon the topic, including the scope of such training.

Field Federal Safety and Health Councils

Ms. Mills provided background on the FFSHCs’ purpose and functions for
the benefit of the new FACOSH members, and also described Councils’
membership structure and development.  Ms. Mills presented a map showing
the location of the active FFSHCs across the country.

Ms. Mills described OSHA’s provisions for recognizing the annual
achievements of FFSHCs.  She noted that there were three award levels
within each of three different council size categories and described the
changes in those categories for the current year.  She also provided
members with the award results for the previous year.

Ms. Mills continued her report, describing the extent of various
agencies’ participation and the challenges for personnel wishing to
participate.  She called members’ attention to their copies of Mr.
Foulke’s memo to agency officials and OSHA regional administrators
encouraging participation (Exhibit 10).

Mr. Nelson, HUD, requested information on the award winning FFSHCs and
their successful strategies.  Ms. Mills explained that the winning
Councils were exemplary in providing training and maintaining an active
schedule of well-attended meetings.

Mr. Hutter, VA, asked about union participation.  Ms. Rodriguez
responded confirming organized labor’s interest in and support of its
members participating in FFSHCs.  Mr. Corey Thompson, American Postal
Workers’ Union (APWU) noted that the collective bargaining agreement
between USPS management and APWU required FFSHC support and
participation.

New Business

FACOSH Member Nominations

Mr. Foulke noted that three management and three labor
representatives’ terms would expire in June 2008.  He stated that a
request for nominations would be published in the Federal Register, and
that all qualified individuals would receive consideration.  He also
reminded the members that the Secretary reserved the right to nominate
qualified candidates.  When there were no questions on the nominations,
Mr. Foulke opened the floor for any other new business.

Other New Business

Return-to-Work/Light Duty

Mr. Hutter, VA, asked about broadening the scope of contributions of
returning employees to allow them to be more productive and support
their agencies’ missions..  Mr. Foulke noted the need for such
discussion and referenced private sector policies on the subject, and
suggested that there be a presentation(s) on this topic at the next
meeting.  Mr. Magill, IBEW, provided specific information on private
sector procedures and offered to help with the issue.

Next meeting and adjournment

Mr. Foulke suggested that the next FACOSH meeting be scheduled for April
10, 2008 and there was no objection.  Mr. Foulke mentioned FACOSH group
photos and he and Ms. Brayden distributed member certificates.  He then
thanked members for their participation and adjourned the meeting at
2:51 p.m.

*  	Exhibits referenced in these minutes are available for copying and
inspection at the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0010, Room
N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.  Exhibits can also be
accessed at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
http://www.regulations.gov , the federal eRulemaking Portal.

 PAGE

 PAGE   8


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 218 (Thursday, November 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69955-69956]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28633]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-89-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LL; Notice of
Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Garden
State Expansion Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the
Garden State Expansion Project, proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Company, LLC (Transco) in the above-referenced docket. Transco
requests authorization to construct and operate a new compressor
station and a new meter and regulating station in Burlington County,
New Jersey and construct and modify an existing compressor station and
related appurtenant facilities in Mercer County, New Jersey.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Garden State Expansion Project in
accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed
project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a
major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.
    The proposed Garden State Expansion Project includes the following
facilities:

Phase 1 (Targeted In-Service Date of November 1, 2016)

     Chesterfield Meter and Regulating (M&R) Station,
Burlington County, New Jersey--new meter and regulating station near
milepost (MP) 15.2 on Transco's Trenton-Woodbury Lateral;
     Compressor Station 205 (Station 205), Mercer County, New
Jersey--Uprate Unit 3 existing motor to 25,000 horsepower (hp) and
related minor ancillary modifications; and
     Valves and tie-in piping extending from Trenton-Woodbury
Lateral to Chesterfield M&R and the future location of Compressor
Station 203 (Station 203).

Phase 2 (Targeted In-Service Date of August 1, 2017)

     Station 205, Mercer County, New Jersey--Units 1 and 2:
Replace existing compressors and uprate electric motors each to 16,000
hp, including minor ancillary modifications;
     Station 203, Burlington County, New Jersey--new compressor
Station consisting of a single 30,500 hp electric motor driven unit
near MP15.2 on the Trenton-Woodbury Lateral;
     Electrical Substation, Burlington County, New Jersey--new
electrical substation to power Station 203; and
     Automate 15-inch block valve J736 located on the Trenton-
Woodbury Lateral, Burlington County, New Jersey.
    The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes;
potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and
groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to
this proceeding. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on
the FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited
number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public
inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-
8371.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To
ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your
comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important
that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before December
4, 2015.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
project docket number (CP15-89-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).\1\ Only intervenors have the
right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. The Commission
grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns
intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a
clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can
adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not
give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to
have your comments considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the previous discussion on the methods for filing
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search,'' and enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-
89). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: November 4, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-28633 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 49 (Thursday, March 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 14309]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05460]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 173, OMB Control No. 3235-0618, SEC File No. 270-557.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Securities Act Rule 173 (17 CFR 230.173) provides a notice of
registration to investors who purchased securities in a registered
offering under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.). A
Rule 173 notice must be provided by underwriter or dealer to each
investor who purchased securities from the underwriter or dealer. The
Rule 173 notice is not publicly available. We estimate that it takes
approximately 0.01 hour per response to provide the information
required under Rule 173 and that the information is filed by
approximately 5,338 respondents approximately 43,546 times a year for a
total of 232,448,548 responses. We estimate that the total annual
reporting burden for Rule 173 is 2,324,485 hours (0.01 hours per
response x 232,448,548 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the performance of the
functions of the agency, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden imposed by the collections of information; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comment to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 7, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-05460 Filed 3-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 70915-70918]
[DOCID:fr13de07-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56920; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-111]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Add Rule 48 Permitting the Exchange to Declare an Extreme Market
Volatility Condition

December 6, 2007.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 5, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the NYSE. The
NYSE has designated the proposed rule change as a ``non-controversial''
rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change
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)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The NYSE is proposing to add NYSE Rule 48 to permit the Exchange to
declare an extreme market volatility condition and suspend certain NYSE
requirements relating to the opening of securities at the Exchange. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on http://www.nyse.com,

at NYSE, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the NYSE included statements
concerning

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to add NYSE Rule 48 to provide the
Exchange with the ability to suspend the requirement to disseminate
price indications and obtain Floor Official approval prior to the
opening when extremely high market volatility could negatively affect
the operation of the market by causing Floor-wide delays in the opening
of securities on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that this rule
change is necessary to ensure the fair and orderly operation of the
Exchange market.
    Background. NYSE Rule 123D(1) states that specialists are
responsible for ensuring that registered securities open as close to
the scheduled opening of trading on the Exchange as possible and that
the opening be fair and orderly. When arranging the opening price of a
security, specialists must make a professional assessment of market
conditions at the time, including considering the balance of supply and
demand as reflected by orders in the market, any price disparity from
the prior close, and such other market conditions that would affect the
opening price of a security.
    While the specialist has ultimate responsibility under the rule for
opening a security, in certain situations arising out of unusual market
conditions, specialists must obtain prior Floor Official approval of
the price at which they will open trading in the security. For example,
the rule provides that specialists should consult with a Floor Official
as soon as it becomes apparent that an unusual trading situation
exists. The rule further provides that a specialist should consult with
a Floor Governor if it is anticipated that the opening price may be at
a significant disparity from the prior close.
    In the event of a large pre-opening order imbalance or before a
stock opens at a large price change, specialists must publicly
disseminate a price indication at least once (and possibly more than
once, depending on pre-opening interest) before opening a security. For
securities priced under $10, such indications are mandatory if the
price change is one dollar or more; for securities between $10 and
$99.99, indications are required for price movements of the lesser of
10% or three dollars; and for securities over $100, indications are
required for price movements of five dollars or more. NYSE Rule 123D(1)
requires supervision and approval by a Floor Official for all such
indications.
    In addition to these requirements, NYSE Rule 79A.30 requires
specialists to obtain prior Floor Official approval if a security is
going to open at one or more dollars away from the closing price at the
Exchange when the closing price was under $20 a share, or two dollars
or more away from the closing price at the Exchange when the closing
price was $20 per share or more.
    Proposed New Rule 48. The requirements described above are designed
to ensure that in unusual situations, there is an impartial
professional assessment of the proposed opening price and that advice
for specialists is available when a significant disparity in supply and
demand exists. The Exchange continues to believe that these
requirements are, in most cases, desirable and enhance the fair and
orderly operation of the market.
    Recently, the equities markets world-wide have experienced
unprecedented levels of volatility, which has caused unprecedented
levels of pre-opening interest and volatility in the United States
markets around the opening of the markets. When these extreme levels of
volatility occur Floor-wide, the pre-opening requirements described
above, instead of facilitating the fair and orderly operation of the
markets, can have the paradoxical effect of impeding the fair and
orderly operation of the market. For example, Exchange systems
currently are programmed such that only NYSE operations staff can
publish the mandatory pre-opening indications to the Consolidated Tape.
On a regular trading day, when such notices occur in only a subset of
its listed securities, the Exchange has sufficient resources to ensure
the timely publication of such notices. But on days when the Exchange
experiences extremely high Floor-wide market volatility that would
stress the Exchange's staffing resources, the Exchange wants to ensure
that openings are not delayed due to difficulties in timely publishing
the mandatory indications.
    Similarly, as noted above, in unusual market situations, Floor
Officials, and in certain circumstances, Senior Floor Officials, Floor
Governors, and Executive Floor Governors, need to be involved on a
security-by-security basis before a stock can open at the Exchange. In
the event of an extreme, Floor-wide market volatility condition, the
Exchange is concerned that Floor Officials would not be able to timely
review each security that faces an unusual market condition. In such
case, the operation of the Exchange could be significantly impaired and
investors adversely impacted because securities cannot be opened on a
timely basis.
    For example, on Friday, August 17, 2007, due to a confluence of
factors, including the impact of the sub-prime mortgage crisis on
market volatility and the Federal Reserve Board's announcement that it
had approved a 50 basis point reduction in the primary credit rate, the
securities markets experienced an extreme level of market volatility
that affected securities across industry lines. At the Exchange,
because of the overwhelming imbalance of pre-opening orders and price
variations from the prior day's close, specialists were required to
disseminate price indications and consult with and obtain prior Floor
Official approval before opening trading in large numbers of stocks.
Because of the number of securities impacted by that extreme market
volatility, this process could not be completed for approximately 300
securities before the scheduled opening of trading. As a result, the
Exchange experienced Floor-wide delays in the opening of securities
that impaired the ability of the Exchange to operate efficiently. This
Floor-wide delay also impacted those customers that had already
submitted orders to the Exchange for execution and who had to wait
until trading opened before such orders could be executed.
    As proposed, in the event of extremely high market volatility that
would have a Floor-wide impact on the ability of specialists to arrange
for the timely opening of trading at the Exchange under the normal
rules, NYSE Rule 48 would permit a qualified Exchange officer to
declare an extreme market volatility condition. For purposes of the
rule, a ``qualified Exchange officer'' means the Chief Executive
Officer of NYSE Euronext, Inc. or his or her designee, or the Chief
Executive Officer of NYSE Regulation, Inc., or his or her designee.
While either may declare the extreme market volatility condition, each
must make a reasonable effort to consult with the other prior to taking
such action.
    The proposed rule is intended to be invoked only in those
situations where the potential for extreme market volatility would
likely impair Floor-

wide operations at the Exchange by impeding the fair and orderly
opening of securities. Accordingly, the proposed rule sets forth a
number of factors that the qualified Exchange officer would have to
consider before declaring such a condition, including: volatility
during the previous day's trading session; trading in foreign markets
before the open; substantial activity in the futures market before the
open; the volume of pre-opening indications of interest; evidence of
pre-opening significant order imbalances across the market; government
announcements; news and corporate events; and any such other market
conditions that could impact Floor-wide trading conditions.
    Once the qualified Exchange officer has reviewed such factors and
determined that an extreme market volatility condition exists, the
qualified Exchange officer must make reasonable efforts to consult with
Commission staff before making such a declaration. The qualified
Exchange officer must also document the basis for making such a
declaration. If the qualified Exchange officer is unable to reach
Commission staff before the opening, he or she may declare such a
condition, but must, as promptly as practicable in the circumstances,
inform Commission staff of such declaration, and the basis for making
such declaration.
    Because the declaration of an extreme market volatility condition
concerns the opening of securities at the Exchange, the proposed rule
further provides that such condition must be declared before the
scheduled opening of securities at the Exchange. Moreover, such
declaration would be in effect only for the opening of that trading
session (or reopenings during the same trading day following the
imposition of a mandatory halt pursuant to NYSE Rule 80B). Should
market conditions that led to the declaration continue on subsequent
days, the Exchange would have to review on a day-by-day basis the
factors necessitating such a declaration and on each day make a
reasonable effort to consult with Commission staff as described above.
    The Exchange notes that even when the dissemination and Floor
Official (including Senior Floor Official and above) approval
requirements are suspended, specialists would remain responsible for
the fair and orderly opening of securities. Exchange rules already
provide that when Floor Official approval is sought for certain
actions, the specialist remains ultimately responsible for arranging
the opening of securities at the Exchange. This obligation would remain
unchanged. Even in the absence of price indications and a Floor
Official's independent, impartial review of the opening, specialists
will still be charged with ensuring that an opening price reflects
market conditions and all participants have had a reasonable
opportunity to participate. In the event of an extreme market
volatility condition, the Exchange represents that it will review
actions by the specialist at the opening to ensure that they have met
their affirmative market maintenance obligations with respect to
arranging a fair and orderly opening of securities at the Exchange.
    The Exchange notes also that, if proposed Rule 48 were invoked, it
would not affect situations where the opening of a security was delayed
for reasons unrelated to extreme market volatility, such as where there
is material news pending that justifies a regulatory halt under NYSE
Rule 123D. In such cases, notwithstanding the invocation of proposed
Rule 48, the specialist in the affected security would be expected to
follow regular procedures for opening the security (that is, as if
proposed Rule 48 had not been invoked).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirement under section 6(b)(5) \5\ of the Act that an
Exchange have rules that are designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A) \6\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\8\ the Exchange provided the
Commission with 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 the filing of
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 6
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \9\ normally
may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \10\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The NYSE requests that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii).\11\ The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because such waiver would allow the Exchange to
immediately implement proposed Rule 48, allowing the Exchange to
utilize these new procedures to open trading in a security in a timely
manner in extreme market volatility conditions that may occur within 30
days after the filing of this proposed rule change.\12\ Accordingly,
the Commission designates that the proposed rule change effective and
operative upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ Id. 11
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NYSE-2007-111 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-111. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE. 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-NYSE-2007-111 and should be
submitted on or before January 3, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-24083 Filed 12-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 43 (Monday, March 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 13409]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04871]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE:  3 p.m. on Thursday, March 11, 2021.

PLACE:  The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS:  This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topics:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.

    Dated: March 4, 2021.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-04871 Filed 3-4-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Information Collection Request for Requirements for Control Technology
Determinations from Major Sources in Accordance with Clean Air Act
Sections, Sections 112(g) and 112(j).

Supporting Statement

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

	(a)	Title and Number of the Information Collection

ICR:	Control Technology for Equivalent Emissions Limitations by Permit
under section 112(j) of the Clean Air Act.

OMB Control Number: 2060-0266, EPA ICR # 1648.06.

	(b)	Short Characterization

	Section 112(j) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAAA) requires
that if EPA fails to promulgate a standard for a category or subcategory
of major sources within 18 months after its scheduled date of
promulgation, then sources must submit a title V permit application
beginning on that date.  States (with approved Title V operating permit
programs) or EPA will issue permits containing MACT emission limitations
determined on a case-by-case basis to be equivalent to what would have
been promulgated by EPA.  EPA has promulgated regulations implementing
section 112(j).

	This ICR supports the regulations to implement section 112(j) (40 CFR
part 63, subpart B, §§63.50-56).  It addresses the information
collection burden (hours and costs) to industry respondents subject to
these provisions; State and Local agencies that review applications made
 and permits issued under these provisions; and the EPA oversight review
of a percentage of State/Local decisions.

	This ICR includes about 20,000 major sources (see Table 1) contained in
4 source categories for which MACT standards have been vacated by the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  We
estimate up to about 20,000 existing and new sources may have to
participate in the development of case-by-case MACT permit applications.
  The average administrative cost per source to these activities is
estimated to be $5,613.80 per source.  Total estimated administrative
costs may be up to $198,003,260 for all sources in all 4 source
categories over the next three years.  However, we expect revised MACT
standards to be promulgated within the next three years, which will
reduce the total burden associated with this ICR.

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

	(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

	Section 112(j) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 contains the
need and authority for this information collection. [42 U.S.C. 7401
(et.seq.)  as amended by Public Law 101-549]

	(b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

	The information collected in the application documents will be used for
the purposes of permit approval, compliance determination, and the
selection of particular control technology on a case-by-case basis.  The
Federal or State administrator of the operating permits program will use
the information for the case-by-case emission limit determinations.

3.	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION 		CRITERIA

	3(a)	Nonduplication

	The information collection activities required under the section 112(j)
regulations are not routinely collected elsewhere by EPA.  However, in
this situation, the permitting authority may likely have collected much,
if not all, of the information items previously in support of other
applications in the course of implementing or preparing to implement the
MACT standards that have been vacated.  Most permitting authorities,
though, will likely accept references to previously submitted
information in lieu of significant duplication, in accordance with
§63.53(b)(1).

	3(b)	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

	A public review and comment period will occur after proposal of the
revised ICR renewal in the Federal Register.

	3(c)	Consultations

	 EPA did not consult with anyone since the previous ICR renewal.

	3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	Each applicant would submit the required information only once (a
permit application) over the term of this ICR.  There is no less
frequent collection.

	3(e)	General Guidelines

	The recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in the section
112(j) regulations do not violate any of the Paperwork Reduction Act
guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.6.

	3(f)	Confidentiality

	Any information submitted to a permitting authority with a claim of
confidentiality will be safeguarded according to that agency’s
policies set forth prior to approval of the agency’s operating permit
program by EPA.  Any confidential information submitted to EPA will be
safeguarded according to policies in 40 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart
B -- Confidentiality of Business Information.

	3(g)	Sensitive Questions

	This section is not applicable.  This ICR does not contain any
sensitive questions relating to sexual behavior or attitudes, religious
beliefs, or other matters usually considered private.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

	4(a)	Respondents/SIC Codes

	Respondents include owners/operators of major sources of hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) in the following source categories: polyvinyl chloride
and copolymers production, brick and structural clay products
manufacturing, clay ceramics manufacturing, and industrial, commercial,
and institutional boilers and process heaters (Table 1).  A major source
is one that has the potential to emit more than 10 tons per year of any
HAP, 25 tons per year for the total of all HAP, or amounts exceeding any
lesser quantity cutoff established pursuant to §112(a)(1) of the CAA.
The boilers source category cuts across a wide variety of industries,
including both manufacturing and nonmanufacturing sources.

	4(b)	Information Requested

	(i)	Data items, including recordkeeping requirements

	Implementation of the section 112(j) program involves information
submitted with the application for a section 112(j) determination and
development of permit terms and conditions.  Section 112(j) does not
contain recordkeeping requirements per se but will require them to
determine compliance with permit terms and conditions.  Implementation
of permit terms and condition is estimated to occur after the term of
this ICR.

	The section 112(j) regulations require a 2-part application.  Sources
will participate in development of the permit and maintain a file of the
permit.  State and local agencies that develop the permit will review
the information and develop case-by-case MACT, followed by the
permitting process and incorporation into the permit.  EPA will provide
oversight to the process.

(ii)	Respondent Activities

Activities (see Table 2) that the owner or operator must perform are:

Develop and submit Part 1 and Part 2 applications

File and maintain the permit application

Work with the permitting authority to develop the permit

Participate in the public hearing

File and maintain the final permit

5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

	5(a)	Agency Activities

	This section addresses the activities of State and Local agencies, as
the permitting authority, and EPA, in an oversight capacity.  The
permitting authority, typically the State or Local air agency, will
perform the following activities (see Table 3.):

Review Part 1 and Part 2 applications and deny or approve them

Develop the emission limitations for the source

Prepare the draft permit

Conduct a public hearing

Interact with EPA

Review and analyze the public comments

Issue the permit

File and maintain the permit

Acting in an oversight capacity, EPA will perform the following
activities (see Table 4):

Review Part 1 and Part 2 applications

Review draft permits

Interact with the permitting authority

File and maintain the permit

	5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

	The owners or operators of the sources affected by these regulations
will have the responsibility of submitting Part 1 and Part 2
applications to the permitting authority.  It is the responsibility of
the permitting authority to provide information necessary for EPA
oversight review.

	Qualified staff that work for the permitting authority will perform the
permit application reviews and check the quality of data submitted by
the applicant on a case-by-case basis.  The permitting authority’s
employees will handle confidential information submitted by the
applicant according to the permitting authority’s confidential
information handling procedures.

	The section 112(j) regulations do not require the request of
information through any type of survey.

	5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

	Minimizing the information collection burden for all sizes of
organizations is a continuing effort on EPA’s part.  EPA has reduced
the information required by requiring only basic information needed by
the permitting authority to make a case-by-case MACT determination.

	5(d)	Collection Schedule

	This ICR does not require surveys.  Each source affected by the section
112(j) regulations is required to submit a permit application.  The
permitting authority must then develop a permit that contains terms and
condition to maintain case-by-case MACT, including recordkeeping and
reporting.

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

	6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden

	This ICR requires the calculation of the amount of burden hours
associated with each activity for each respondent.  In the section
112(j) permitting process for major sources, each respondent must submit
the permit application in two parts as specified in section 4(b)(i) of
this Supporting Statement.  Most, if not all, of the information
required in the Part 2 application will have already been submitted to
the permitting authority in previous permit submittals; we expect the
burden to be relatively low for this activity.

	For the section 112(j) regulations, burden for the respondents is a
combination of administrative costs (preparing the permit applications)
and compliance costs.  The permit will be developed and issue during the
term of this ICR.

	6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs

	(i) 	Labor costs

	Wage rates for industry respondents were retrieved from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics. (  HYPERLINK
(http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_09202007.pdf
http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_09202007.pdf , Table 11.
Employer costs per hour worked for employee compensation and costs as a
percent of total compensation: Private Industry workers, by occupational
group and full-time and part-time status, June 2007).  The hourly rates
are listed as follows:  $51.93 for management labor, $44.98 for
technical labor, and $22.63 for clerical labor.  These labor rates were
multiplied by 1.5 to account for overhead costs.  Therefore, we
estimated the hourly cost of labor for industry sources submitting
permit applications to be $77.90 for management labor, $67.47 for
technical labor, and $33.94 for clerical labor.   Table 2 provides a
breakdown of labor hours and associated costs per occurrence for each
activity in each part of the application process for existing and new
sources.

	(ii) 	Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs

	Though difficult to determine because of the case-by-case nature of
112(j) determinations, we do not anticipate that capital or operation
and maintenance costs associated with application of section 112(j)
limits will be significantly different than such costs that have been
expended or were to be expended by sources to comply with the vacated
MACT standards.

	6(c)	Estimating State/Local Agency Burden and Cost

	Similar to sections 6(a) and 6(b), the activities for State/Local
agencies are divided into the activities that would take place for both
parts of the application process as described in section 4(b)(i) of this
Supporting Statement.  Although the MACT standards were entirely
vacated, much of those standards can be used as case-by-case MACT.  We
expect emission limitations can be easily developed for those
subcategories and emission points that had none (a major issue in the
vacaturs); once developed, they can easily be applied across the board,
and thus the burden can be spread across thousands of permits,
minimizing the burden for each permit.  Wage rates for State/Local
employees were retrieved from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (
HYPERLINK (http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_09202007.pdf
http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_09202007.pdf , Table 4.
Employer costs per hour worked for employee compensation and costs as a
percent of total compensation:  State and local government workers, by
occupational group and full-time and part-time status, June 2007) and
are as follows: $33.11 per hour for management labor, $33.22 per hour
for technical labor, and $16.39 per hour for clerical labor.  We added
in the value of total benefits in BLS Table 4.  We chose 20 percent of
the base rate as the percentage of salary that constitutes overhead.
The addition of benefits and overhead to the hourly rate produces a pay
rate that reflects the true cost to employ a State, Local, or Tribal
agency worker.  Following is a summary of the computed hourly wages for
State, Local, and Tribal agency employees.

 Hourly Labor Rates for State, Local and Tribal Respondents

Labor Type	Hourly Rate	Benefits

	Overhead

(20 % Salary)	Adjusted Hourly Rate

Management	$33.11	$14.18	$6.62	$53.91

Technical	$33.22	$13.79	$6.64	$53.65

Clerical	$16.39	$10.21	$3.28	$29.88

	Table 3 provides a breakdown of labor hours and associated costs for
State/Local/Tribal agencies for existing sources and new sources,
respectively.

	6(d)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

	Under the section 112(j) regulations, EPA would serve in an oversight
capacity and audit approximately 10 percent of all applications
processed by State/Local agencies.  As recommended in the ICR Handbook,
wage rates for EPA employees are based upon the Federal government pay
scale.  We calculated the hourly rates for EPA employees using
information on annual salaries from the Internet site for the Office of
Personnel Management.  (  HYPERLINK
http://www.opm.gov/oca/02tables/02rus.pdf
http://www.opm.gov/oca/07tables/pdf/rus_h.pdf ; January 2007) .  We used
the appropriate pay grade levels for management, technical, and clerical
personnel.  We divided the annual pay rate by 2080, the amount of
working hours during a calendar year, to get the hourly wage rate.  We
then multiplied this rate by 1.6 to produce a pay rate that reflects the
true cost to the Federal government to employ a worker.  The value of
1.6 incorporates the addition of benefits at 40 % of salary and the
addition of overhead at 20% of salary to the hourly rate.  Following is
a summary of the computed wages for EPA personnel.

 Hourly Labor Rates for EPA

Labor Type	Pay Grade	Annual Salary	Hourly Rate	Benefits

(40 % Salary)	Overhead

(20 % Salary)	Adjusted Hourly Rate

Management	GS-15	$104,826	$50.23	$20.09	$10.05	$80.37

Technical	GS-12	$63,417	$30.39	$12.16	$6.08	$48.63

Clerical	GS-6	$32,172	$15.42	$6.17	$3.08	$24.67

	Table 4 provides a breakdown in the amount of hours associated with
each activity and the total burden hours and cost per occurrence for
existing and new sources, respectively.

	6(e) The Respondent Universe

	In order to estimate the number of sources subject to the section
112(j) regulations, EPA reviewed information in the originally
promulgated MACT standards for the 4 source categories and allowed for a
small amount of growth in the industries.  For the boiler source
category, EPA estimates there are approximately 60,000 boilers at about
20,000 facilities (sources) that would be affected.  However, for the
boilers source category, this estimate is likely high because in the
court decision vacating the boilers rule, the court indicated that EPA
had inappropriately included certain facilities in the category.  At
this time, though, without additional information, we are unable to
determine a more appropriate estimate.

	6(f)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost

	Over the three-year period of this ICR, the estimated average annual
burden and cost associated with the section 112(j) regulations are
1,134,067 hours and $66,001,087 respectively.  Table 5 contains the
total estimated burden and cost breakdown associated with the section
112(j) regulations.  Table 6 provides a summary of the estimated bottom
line burden hours and costs associated with the section 112(j)
regulations.

	6(g)	Reasons for Change in Burden

	The ICR 1648.04 spanned the period in which the section 112(j) rule
would have applied to any of the 59 source categories covered by the
2000 MACT standards (the 10-year bin).  This ICR would affect only the 4
source categories covered by the MACT standards that have been vacated
by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (see Table 1).  Unlike ICR No. 1648.04, which estimated the
burden from the Part 1 application only (because all the MACT standards
were promulgated before Part 2 applied), this ICR estimates burden for
preparing and submitting the Parts 1 and 2 permit applications,
developing the title V permit terms and conditions, and the permit
review and approval process.

	This ICR also estimates the number of responses on a facility basis
instead of an individual boiler basis as the previous ICR did, because
each facility will submit one application for the facility, not each
boiler.

	Because we believe that most, if not all, sources subject to the
vacated MACT standards have already installed controls to meet those
standards, we have not calculated compliance costs for the ICR.
Finally, EPA has updated the labor rates for respondents, State, Local,
and Tribal agencies, and the EPA as discussed in sections 6(b), (c), and
(d) of this ICR.  These adjustments were made to more accurately reflect
the true cost of an hour of labor for the respondents, State, Local, and
Tribal agencies, and the EPA   The unloaded hourly rates are different
because they are based on the latest available rates from the BLS and
the OPM.  Table 7 provides a summary of the differences between burden
hours and costs associated with each occurrence for the previous and
current ICR.

	The difference in the burden estimate is due to the adjustments
discussed above, including number of respondents, submittal of permit
applications, development of the permit, and updated labor rates.

	6(h) 	Burden Statement

	 This estimate includes all activities associated with the respondents
or government agencies.  Overall, the section 112(j) program will have
the following average annual burden: 578,000 hours and $37,425,333 for
respondents; 549,333 hours and $28,210,867 for State/Local/Tribal
agencies; and 6,733 hours and $364,887 for the EPA.  Table 5 presents
the annual burden for respondents, State/Local agencies, and the EPA
over the next 3 years.

	Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR
Chapter 15.

	Send comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated
collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division,
Office of Environmental Information, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; and
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Include the EPA ICR number and OMB
control number in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

	This section is not applicable because statistical methods are not used
in the data collection associated with the section 112(j) regulations.

TABLES

								Table 1.  Source Categories for which MACT Standards have been
vacated

Source Category	Estimated # of sources at promulgation	Estimated growth
rate	Years since promulgation	Total estimated number of sources

Polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production (Part 63, Subpart J)	28	–
5	28

Brick and structural clay products manufacturing (Part 63, Subpart
JJJJJ)	68	3/yr	4	80

Clay ceramics manufacturing (Part 63, Subpart KKKKK)	8	1/yr	4	12

Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters
(Part 63, Subpart DDDDD)	58,000 boilers

(~19,000 facilities)	800/yr	3	60,400 boilers

(~20,000 facilities)

 PAGE   12

 PAGE   13


[Federal Register: June 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 112)]
[Notices]
[Page 33297-33298]
[DOCID:fr11jn10-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance at North American Electric
Reliability Corporation Meetings From July-December 2010

June 2, 2010.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of the Commission and Commission staff may attend the following
NERC related meetings:
    NERC Planning Committee Meetings and its sub-committee meetings on,
but not limited to:
     Tuesday--Wednesday, September 14-15, 2010 Denver, CO
(TBD).
     Tuesday--Wednesday, December 7-8, 2010 Tampa, FL (TBD).
    NERC Operating Committee Meetings and its sub-committee meetings
on, but not limited to:
     Tuesday--Wednesday, September 14-15, 2010 Denver, CO
(TBD).
     Tuesday--Wednesday, December 7-8, 2010 Tampa, FL (TBD).
    NERC Reliability Assessment Subcommittee on, but not limited to:
     Tuesday--Wednesday, August 10-11, 2010 Salt Lake City, UT
(TBD).
     Tuesday--Wednesday, October 12-13, 2010 New York, NY (2).
     Tuesday, December 7, 2010 Teleconference (TBD).
    NERC Reliability Metrics Working Group on, but not limited to:
     Wednesday, July 14, 2010 Teleconference (TBD).
     Wednesday, August 18, 2010 Teleconference (TBD).
     Wednesday--Thursday, September 22-23, 2010 (TBD).
     Wednesday, October 20, 2010 Teleconference (TBD).
     Wednesday, November 17, 2010 Teleconference (TBD).
    NERC Resources Subcommittee Meetings on, but not limited to:
     Wednesday--Thursday, July 28-29, 2010 Pensacola, FL (3).
     Wednesday--Thursday, October 27-28, 2010 Valley Forge, PA
(TBD).
    NERC Standards Committee Meetings and its sub-committee meetings
on, but not limited to:
     Wednesday--Thursday, July 14-15, 2010 Toronto, Ontario
(TBD).
     Thursday, August 12, 2010, Teleconference (1).
     Thursday, September 9, 2010 Teleconference (1).
     Wednesday--Thursday, October 13-14, 2010 Houston, TX
(TBD).
     Thursday, November 11, 2010, Teleconference (1).
     Thursday, December 9, 2010, Teleconference (1).
    NERC Transmission Issues Subcommittee on, but not limited to:
     Wednesday--Thursday, July 21-22, 2010 (TBD).
     Wednesday--Thursday, October 13-14, 2010 (TBD).
    NERC Board of Trustees Meetings:
     Wednesday--Thursday, August 4-5, 2010 Toronto, Ontario
(4).
     Wednesday--Thursday, November 3-4, 2010 Atlanta, GA (TBD).
    NERC Finance and Audit Committee Meetings:
     TBD.
    Critical Infrastructure Protection Committee Quarterly Meetings and
its sub-committee meetings on, but not limited to:
     Wednesday--Thursday, September 15-16, 2010 (TBD).
     Wednesday--Thursday, December 8-9, 2010 (TBD).
    The meetings above will be held at the following locations:
    1. North American Electric Reliability Corporation,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. NPCC Offices, 1515 Broadway, New York, NY 10036,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    3. Gulf Power Co. Headquarters, Room 596, Pensacola, FL 32502,
205.257.6209.
    4. Marriott Toronto Eaton Centre, 525 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario
MSG 2L2,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Further information may be found at http://www.nerc.com.
    The above-referenced meetings are open to the public.
    For more information, contact Mary Agnes Nimis, Office of Electric

Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Nicholas Snyder, Office of Electric
Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-14033 Filed 6-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 72 (Friday, April 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 16169]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07663]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land Use Assurance;
Arlington Municipal Airport, Arlington, WA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is being given that the FAA is considering a proposal
from the City of Arlington Airport Director to change certain portions
of the airport from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use at
Arlington Municipal Airport, Arlington, WA. The proposal consists of
approximately 52,500 square feet on the west side of the airfield
adjacent to 51st Avenue, Northeast.

DATES: Comments are due within 30 days of the date of the publication
of this notice in the Federal Register. Written comments can be
provided to Ms. Cayla D. Morgan, Environmental Protection Specialist,
Seattle Airports District Office, 2200 216th Street, Des Moines, WA
98198.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David M. Ryan, Airport Director,
City of Arlington, 18204 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, WA 98223; or Ms.
Cayla D. Morgan, Environmental Protection Specialist, Seattle Airports
District Office, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, 98198, (206) 231-
4130. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at the above
locations.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C.
47153(c), and 47107(h)(2), the FAA is considering a proposal from the
Airport Director, City of Arlington, to change a portion of the
Arlington Municipal Airport from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical
use. The proposal consists of approximately 52,000 square feet on the
west side of the airport adjacent to 51st Avenue, Northeast.
    The property consists of two oddly shaped triangular section of
land that are not large enough to support construction of an aircraft
hangar or ramp. It is currently an unused parking area. The airport is
proposing an Airport Observation Area for aviation educational
purposes. The airport will continue to own the property so there will
be no proceeds associated with this release from a land use provision.
The FAA concurs that the parcels are no longer needed for aeronautical
purposes. The proposed use of this property is compatible with other
airport operations in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures
Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, published in Federal Register on
February 16, 1999.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on April 6, 2018.
Kevin Yarnell,
Acting Manager, Seattle Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2018-07663 Filed 4-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 22665]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09958]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14810-001]

Chugach Electric Association, Inc.; Notice of Surrender of
Preliminary Permit

    Take notice that Chugach Electric Association, Inc., permittee for
the proposed Snow River Hydroelectric Project, has requested that its
preliminary permit be terminated. The permit was issued on March 22,
2017, and would have expired on February 29, 2020.\1\ The project would
have been located on the Snow River, near Seward in the Kenai Peninsula
Borough, Alaska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 158 FERC 62,225 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preliminary permit for Project No. 14810 will remain in effect
until the close of business, June 10, 2017. But, if the Commission is
closed on this day, then the permit remains in effect until the close
of business on the next day in which the Commission is open.\2\ New
applications for this site may not be submitted until after the permit
surrender is effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 385.2007(a)(2) (2016).

    Dated: May 11, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09958 Filed 5-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75686-75687]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26183]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-5423; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-09-AD;
Amendment 39-18694; AD 2016-22-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Division Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW4164, PW4164-1D, PW4168, PW4168-1D, PW4168A,
PW4168A-1D, and PW4170 turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by
several instances of fuel leaks on PW engines installed with the Talon
IIB combustion chamber configuration. This AD requires initial and
repetitive inspections of the affected fuel nozzles and their
replacement with parts eligible for installation. We are issuing this
AD to prevent failure of the fuel nozzles, which could lead to engine
fire and damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective December 6, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 6,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Pratt & Whitney Division, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT
06108; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may view this
service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on
the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5423.

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-2016-
5423; 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Besian Luga, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 781-
238-7199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain PW PW4164, PW4164-
1D, PW4168, PW4168-1D, PW4168A, PW4168A-1D, and PW4170 turbofan
engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2016
(81 FR 23217) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM was prompted by several
instances of fuel leaks on PW engines installed with the Talon IIB
combustion chamber configuration. The NPRM proposed to require initial
and repetitive inspections of the affected fuel nozzles and their
replacement with parts eligible for installation. We are issuing this
AD to prevent failure of the fuel nozzles, which could lead to engine
fire and damage to the airplane.

Comments

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

Request To Change Definition of Engine Shop Visit

    Delta Air Lines (Delta) requested that the definition of an
``engine shop visit'' be defined as the induction of an engine into the
shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating
engine flanges. Delta requested this change so that the definition of
an engine shop visit in this AD would be consistent with prior ADs.
    We disagree. The redefined shop visit interval as requested would
result in less frequent replacements of fuel nozzles and an
unacceptable fleet risk. We did not change this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW4G-100-A73-45, dated
February 16, 2016. The ASB describes procedures for inspecting and
replacing the fuel nozzles. 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.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 72 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about
2.2 hours per engine to perform each inspection and 48 hours per engine
to replace the fuel nozzle. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. We
also estimate that parts cost would be $15,780 per engine. Based on
these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be
$1,443,384.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII:

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2016-22-05 Pratt & Whitney Division: Amendment 39-18694; Docket No.
FAA-2016-5423; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-09-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 6, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney (PW):
    (1) PW4164, PW4168, and PW4168A model engines that have
incorporated PW Service Bulletin (SB) PW4G-100-72-214, dated
December 15, 2011, or PW SB PW4G-100-72-219, Revision No. 1, dated
October 5, 2011, or original issue, and have fuel nozzles, part
number (P/N) 51J345, installed;
    (2) PW4168A model engines with Talon IIA outer combustion
chamber assembly, P/N 51J100, and fuel nozzles, P/N 51J345, with
serial numbers CGGUA19703 through CGGUA19718 inclusive or CGGUA22996
and higher, installed;
    (3) PW4168A-1D and PW4170 model engines with engine serial
numbers P735001 thru P735190 inclusive and fuel nozzles, P/N 51J345,
installed; and
    (4) PW4164-1D, PW4168-1D, PW4168A-1D, and PW4170 model engines
that have incorporated PW SB PW4G-100-72-220, Revision No. 4, dated
September 30, 2011, or earlier revision, and have fuel nozzles, P/N
51J345, installed.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by nine instances of fuel leaks on PW
engines with the Talon IIB combustion chamber configuration
installed. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the fuel
nozzles, which could lead to engine fire and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) Within 800 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
and thereafter within every 800 flight hours accumulated on the fuel
nozzles, do the following:
    (i) Inspect all fuel nozzles, P/N 51J345. Use Part A of PW Alert
Service Bulletin (ASB) PW4G-100-A73-45, dated February 16, 2016, to
do the inspection.
    (ii) For any fuel nozzle that fails the inspection, before
further flight, remove and replace it with a part that is eligible
for installation.
    (2) At the next shop visit after the effective date of this AD,
and thereafter at each engine shop visit, remove all fuel nozzles,
P/N 51J345, unless fuel nozzles were replaced within the last 100
flight hours. Use Part B of PW ASB PW4G-100-A73-45, dated February
16, 2016, to replace the fuel nozzles with parts eligible for
installation.

(f) Definitions

    (1) For the purpose of this AD, an ``engine shop visit'' means
the induction of an engine into the shop for any maintenance.
    (2) For the purpose of this AD, a part that is ``eligible for
installation'' is a fuel nozzle, with a P/N other than 51J345, that
is FAA-approved for installation or a fuel nozzle, P/N 51J345, that
meets the requirements of Part A, paragraph 4.B., or Part B,
paragraph 1.B. of PW ASB PW4G-100-A73-45, dated February 16, 2016.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(h) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Besian Luga,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Pratt & Whitney (PW) Alert Service Bulletin PW4G-100-A73-45,
dated February 16, 2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For PW service information identified in this AD, contact
Pratt & Whitney Division, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
781-238-7125.
    (5) You may view this service information at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 25, 2016.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-26183 Filed 10-31-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P