[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 24923]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08905]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0122]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Nanticoke River, Sharptown, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is withdrawing its proposed rule to establish
temporary special local regulations for certain waters of the Nanticoke
River. The rulemaking was initiated to establish a special local
regulation during the ``Sharptown Regatta,'' a marine event to be held
on certain waters of the Nanticoke River at Sharptown, MD. The proposed
rule is being withdrawn because it is no longer necessary. The event
sponsor will no longer be conducting the power boat racing event.

DATES: The Coast Guard is withdrawing the proposed rule for the event
scheduled from noon to 5 p.m. on May 13, 2022, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
on May 14, 2022, and from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on May 15, 2022, and
published on March 14, 2022, (87 FR 14193) as of April 27, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To view the docket for this withdrawn rulemaking, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2022-0122 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
notice, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, Waterways Management Division,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region; telephone
410-576- 2674, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background Information and Regulatory History

    On March 14, 2022, we published an NPRM entitled ``Special Local
Regulation; Nanticoke River, Sharptown, MD'' in the Federal Register
(87 FR 14193). The Coast Guard proposed to establish a temporary
special local regulation for certain navigable waters of the Nanticoke
River from 11 a.m. on May 13, 2022, through 6 p.m. on May 15, 2022.
This action was necessary to provide for the safety of life on these
waters during a power boat racing event on May 14, 2022, and May 15,
2022, as well as pre-race practice on May 13, 2022. This rulemaking
would have prohibited persons and vessels from entering the regulated
area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region or the Coast Guard Event Patrol Commander.

Withdrawal

    The proposed rule is being withdrawn due to the regulated area no
longer being necessary because the event sponsor will no longer be
conducting the power boat racing event.

Authority

    We issue this notice of withdrawal under the authority of 46 U.S.C.
70041.

     Dated: April 21, 2022.
James R. Bendle,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Maryland-
National Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2022-08905 Filed 4-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 92 (Monday, May 13, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27867-27869]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11237]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0401; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-047-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; MD Helicopters Inc. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD) for MD Helicopters Inc. (MDHI) Model 369A, 369D, 369E, 369H,
369HE, 369HM, 369HS, 369F and 369FF helicopters with certain MDHI or
Helicopter Technology Company (HTC) tail rotor blades installed. The
existing AD currently requires reducing the retirement life of each
tail rotor blade (blade), performing a one-time visual inspection of
each blade's pitch horn (pitch horn) for a crack or corrosion, and
replacing any cracked blade or any blade that has exceeded its
retirement life with an airworthy blade. The AD also requires reporting
information to the FAA within 24 hours following the one-time
inspection. Since we issued that AD, an accident in England prompted an
investigation that showed corrosion on the blade's pitch horn that had
not been detected under the paint. This proposed AD would retain some
of the requirements in the existing AD but would require paint removal
for all pitch horn inspections, inspecting for pitting and the shot
peen surface's condition in addition to cracks and corrosion, and would
add certain part-numbered blades to the applicability. The proposed
actions are intended to prevent a pitch horn from cracking, leading to
vibration, loss of tail rotor pitch control, and subsequent loss of
tail rotor and helicopter control.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 12, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic
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 service information identified in this
proposed AD, contact MD Helicopters, Inc., Attn: Customer Support
Division, 4555 E. McDowell Rd., Mail Stop M615, Mesa, AZ 85215-9734;
telephone 1-800-388-3378; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site http://www.mdhelicopters.com or contact Helicopter Technology Company, 12923
South Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90061; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site www.helicoptertech.com. You
may review service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Guerin, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane Directorate,
FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712; telephone (562)
627-5232; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    On July 2, 2003, we published AD No. 2003-08-51, Amendment 39-13215
(68 FR 39449) for MDHI Model 369A, 369D, 369E, 369H, 369HE, 369HM,
369HS, 369F and 369FF helicopters. AD No. 2003-08-51 requires reducing
the retirement life of certain blades, performing a one-time visual
inspection of each pitch horn for a crack or corrosion, and replacing
an unairworthy blade with an airworthy blade. AD No. 2003-08-51 also
requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the
helicopter maintenance manual to reflect the reduced retirement life,
and reporting the information to the FAA within 24 hours following the
one-time inspection. AD No. 2003-08-51 published in the Federal
Register Emergency AD No. 2003-08-51, dated April 15, 2003. On August
11, 2003, the Federal Register published a correction to AD No. 2003-
08-51 (68 FR 47447) to correct an error in a blade part number.
    AD No. 2003-08-51 (68 FR 39449, July 2, 2003) was prompted by two
reports of cracked pitch horns that failed during flight. The failures
were caused by a fatigue crack in the pitch horns that developed before
the blades reached their retirement lives. The pilots, however, landed
the helicopters without further incidents.
    The actions of AD No. 2003-08-51 (68 FR 39449, July 2, 2003) are
intended to prevent a pitch horn from cracking and separating from the
blade, leading to an unbalanced condition, vibration, loss of tail
rotor pitch control, and loss of directional control of the helicopter.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    Since we published AD No. 2003-08-51 (68 FR 39449, July 2, 2003)
and its correction (68 FR 47447, August 11, 2003), a June 2011 accident
in England prompted an investigation that found corrosion on the pitch
horn of the blade that had not been detected under the paint. The
corrosion compromised the shot peen surface, which caused premature
fatigue failure. The pilot survived the accident but suffered serious
injuries. These actions are intended to detect a crack or condition
that could cause a crack on the blades, as well as on blades
manufactured or reworked since the issuance of AD No. 2003-08-51. We
are including HTC blades in the applicability of the AD because that
company manufactures blades for MDHI.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type
designs.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed MDHI Service Bulletin SB369D-210/SB369E-105/SB369F-091/
SB369H-252, dated November 21, 2011, and HTC Mandatory Service Bulletin
No. 3100-5, dated August 25, 2011 (service bulletins). The service
bulletins specify removing the paint from the pitch horn, performing an
inspection of the blade using a 10x magnifying glass and a bright
light, repainting the pitch horn area, and repeating the inspection
annually. The service bulletins state that no corrosion, pitting, or
cracking is acceptable. The MDHI service bulletin adds that a lack,
removal, or blending of the shot peen surface is unacceptable.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require establishing a retirement life for
new applicable blades of 400 hours time-in-service (TIS). Installed
blades with 390 to 700 hours TIS would need to be replaced within 10
hours TIS. Blades with more than 700 hours TIS would need to be
replaced before further flight. Within 60 days and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed one year, all other blades would need to be
inspected with a 10X magnifying glass for a crack, pitting, corrosion
and the condition of the dimpled shot peen surface. If there is a
crack, pitting, corrosion or a nonconforming shot peen surface, then we
would require replacement of the blade with an airworthy blade.

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The service bulletins require the initial corrosion inspection
within 5 flight hours and annually thereafter. This AD proposes that
the initial corrosion inspection occur within 60 days and annually
thereafter.
    We use the term ``pitch horn'' to describe the section that
connects the blade to the tail rotor pitch link. The service bulletins
use the term ``pitch control arm.''

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 827 helicopters of
U.S. Registry and that labor costs would average $85 a work-hour. Based
on these estimates, we expect the following costs:
     The inspection would require 4.5 work hours, and parts
would cost $20 for a total cost of about $403 per helicopter and
$333,281 for the U.S. fleet.
     Replacing a tail rotor blade, if needed, would require 1
work hour. Parts would cost $15,951, for a total cost of $16,036 per
helicopter.
     The cost would be negligible to revise the Airworthiness
Limitations section of the maintenance manual to reflect a blade's new
retirement life.

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

    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, 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 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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 Amendment 39-13215 (68 FR
39449, August 11, 2003), and adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

MD Helicopters, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2013-0401; Directorate
Identifier 2012-SW-047-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to MD Helicopters, Inc., (MDHI) Model 369A,
369D, 369E, 369H, 369HE, 369HM, 369HS, 369F and 369FF helicopters
with a tail rotor blade (blade) part number (P/N) 369D21640-501,
369D21640-503, 369D21641-501, 369D21641-503, 369D21642-501,
369D21642-503, 369D21643-501, or 369D21643-503 installed, or with a
Helicopter Technology Company blade P/N 500P3100-101, 500P3100-301,
500P3300-501, or 500P3500-701 installed, certificated in any
category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as the tail rotor blade
pitch horn (pitch horn) separating from the tail rotor blade,
leading to an unbalanced condition, vibration, loss of tail rotor
pitch control and loss of directional control of the helicopter.

 (c) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD No. 2003-08-51, Amendment 39-13215 (68 FR
39449, July 2, 2003; correction 68 FR 47447, August 11, 2003).

(d) Comments Due Date

    Comments are due July 12, 2013.

(e) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(f) Required Actions

    (1) Before further flight, for each applicable blade, revise the
Airworthiness Limitations section of the maintenance manual to
reflect that the blade has a retirement life of 400 hours time-in-
service (TIS).
    (2) For helicopters with an applicable blade installed that has
390 through 700 hours TIS, within 10 hours TIS, replace the blade
with an airworthy blade.
    (3) For all other applicable helicopters, within 60 days, and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed one year, remove the paint
from the blade pitch control arm in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions, Section 2.A.(1) through 2.A.(3), of
MDHI Service Bulletin SB369D-210/SB369E-105/SB369F-091/SB369H-252,
dated November 21, 2011 (MDHI SB).
    (i) Using a 10X or higher power magnifying glass, inspect all
four sides and the pocket of the blade pitch control arm for a
crack, pitting, or corrosion and for the condition of the dimpled
shot peen surface by referring to Figure 1 of the MDHI SB and by
reviewing the rotorcraft maintenance records to determine whether
rework was done in this area.
    (ii) If there is pitting, corrosion, a crack, blending or
removal of any of the dimpled shot peen surface, or any indication
that the shot peen has not been done, replace the blade with an
airworthy blade.
    (iii) If there is no pitting, corrosion, cracks, or blending or
removal of any of the dimpled shot peen surface, refinish the
stripped pitch control arm in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions, Section 2.A.(6) through 2.A.(7), of the MDHI SB.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Fred Guerin,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood,
California 90712; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.
    (3) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD No. 2003-08-
51 (68 FR 39449, July 2, 2003; correction 68 FR 47447, August 11,
2003) are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding requirements in
this AD.

(h) Additional Information

    MD Helicopters Inc. maintenance manuals CSP-HMI2, TR12-001, CHP-
H-4, and TR12-001, which are not incorporated by reference, contain
additional information about the subject of this AD. For service
information identified in this AD, contact MD Helicopters, Inc.,
Attn: Customer Support Division, 4555 E. McDowell Rd., Mail Stop
M615, Mesa, AZ 85215-9734; telephone 1-800-388-3378; fax 480-346-
6813; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site http://www.mdhelicopters.com or contact Helicopter Technology Company,
12923 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90061; telephone 310-523-
2750; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site
www.helicoptertech.com. You may review a copy of this information at
the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6410.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 26, 2013.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-11237 Filed 5-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 164)]
[Notices]
[Page 43178-43182]
[DOCID:fr26au09-123]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60527; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2009-45]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment No. 1
Thereto To Adopt Rules Implementing the Options Order Protection and
Locked/Crossed Market Plan

August 18, 2009.

I. Introduction

    On May 20, 2009, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
amend and adopt rules to implement the Options Order Protection and
Locked/Crossed Market Plan. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on June 12, 2009.\3\ On July 12, 2009,
the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the

proposed rule change.\4\ The Commission received no comments on the
proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60054 (June 5,
2009), 74 FR 28078 (``Notice'').
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 clarified that this proposed rule change
will become effective upon the Exchange's withdrawal from the Plan
for the Purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket Option
Linkage and the effectiveness of the Options Order Protection and
Locked/Crossed Market Plan. In addition, Amendment No. 1 revised
Proposed NYSE Arca Rule 6.95(b) to delete the last sentence which
stated, in reference to the proposed locked/crossed market exception
for non-customer quotes, that the ``exemption is operative as long
as the Exchange identifies the presence of Customer orders in its
disseminated bid or offer'' because the sentence was not included in
similar rules of other exchanges. Because the amendment provided
clarification and revised the Exchange's proposed locked and crossed
market rule in a non-substantive manner to conform with similar
proposed rules of other exchanges, the amendment did not require
notice and comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to amend and adopt new NYSE Arca rules to
implement the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan
(``Plan'').\5\ Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend and/or
replace NYSE Arca Rules 6.92 through 6.96 with new rules implementing
the Plan, amend other Exchange rules to reflect the Plan, and delete
rules rendered unnecessary by the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Plan is a national market system plan proposed by the
seven existing options exchanges and approved by the Commission. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59647 (March 30, 2009), 74 FR
15010 (April 2, 2009) (File No. 4-546) (``Plan Notice'') and 60405
(July 30, 2009), 74 FR 39362 (August 6, 2009) (File No. 4-546)
(``Plan Approval''). The seven options exchanges are: Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''); International Securities
Exchange, LLC (``ISE''); The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'');
NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BOX''); NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'');
NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex''); and NYSE Arca (each exchange
individually a ``Participant'' and, together, the ``Participating
Options Exchanges'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Old Plan

    Each of the Participating Options Exchanges are signatories to the
Plan for the Purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket Option
Linkage (``Old Plan'').\6\ In pertinent part, the Old Plan generally
requires its participants to avoid trading at a price inferior to the
national best bid or offer (``trade-through''), although it provides
for a number of exceptions to trade-through liability.\7\ The
Participating Options Exchanges comply with this requirement of the Old
Plan by utilizing a stand alone system (``Linkage Hub'') to send and
receive specific order types,\8\ namely Principal Acting as Agent
Orders (``P/A Orders''), Principal Orders, and Satisfaction Orders.\9\
The Old Plan also provided that dissemination of ``locked'' or
``crossed'' markets should be avoided, and remedial actions that should
be taken to unlock or uncross such market.\10\ Each of the
Participating Options Exchanges, including the Exchange, has submitted
an amendment to the Old Plan to withdraw from such Plan.\11\ The
withdrawals will be effective upon approval by the Commission of such
amendments pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Act
(``Regulation NMS'').\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ On July 28, 2000, the Commission approved the Old Plan as a
national market system plan for the purpose of creating and
operating an intermarket options market linkage proposed by the
American Stock Exchange LLC (n/k/a NYSE Amex), CBOE, and ISE. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43086 (July 28, 2000), 65 FR
48023 (August 4, 2000). Subsequently, Philadelphia Stock Exchange,
Inc. (n/k/a Phlx), Pacific Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a NYSE Arca), Boston
Stock Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a BOX), and Nasdaq joined the Linkage
Plan. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 43573 (November 16,
2000), 65 FR 70851 (November 28, 2000); 43574 (November 16, 2000),
65 FR 70850 (November 28, 2000); 49198 (February 5, 2004), 69 FR
7029 (February 12, 2004); and 57545 (March 21, 2008), 73 FR 16394
(March 27, 2008).
    \7\ Section 8(c) of the Old Plan.
    \8\ The Linkage Hub is a centralized data communications network
that electronically links the Participating Options Exchanges to one
another. The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') operates the
Linkage Hub.
    \9\ Section 2(16) of the Old Plan.
    \10\ Section 7(a)(i)(C) of the Old Plan.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60360 (July 21,
2009) 74 FR 37265 (July 28, 2009) (File No. 4-429).
    \12\ 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Plan

    The Plan does not require a central linkage mechanism akin to the
Old Plan's Linkage Hub. Instead, the Plan includes the framework for
routing orders via private linkages that exist for NMS stocks under
Regulation NMS.\13\ The Plan requires the Participating Options
Exchanges to adopt rules ``reasonably designed to prevent Trade-
Throughs.'' \14\ Participating Options Exchanges are also required to
conduct surveillance of their respective markets on a regular basis to
ascertain the effectiveness of the policies and procedures to prevent
Trade-Throughs and to take prompt action to remedy deficiencies in such
policies and procedures.\15\ As further described below, the Plan
incorporates a number of exceptions to trade-through liability.\16\
Some of these exceptions are carried over from the Old Plan, including
exceptions for trading rotations, non-firm quotes, and complex
trades.\17\ Others are substantially similar to exceptions available
for NMS stocks under Regulation NMS, such as exceptions for systems
issues, crossed markets, quote flickering, customer stopped orders,
benchmark trades and, notably, intermarket sweep orders (``ISOs'').\18\
In addition, the Plan contains a new exception for stopped orders and
price improvement.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) (File No. S7-10-04); 17 CFR
242.600 et seq. For discussions of the similarities between the
provisions of Regulation NMS and the provisions in the Plan, see the
Plan Notice and Plan Approval, supra note 5.
    \14\ Under the Plan, a ``Trade-Through'' is generally defined as
a transaction in an option series, either as principal or agent, at
a price that is lower than a Protected Bid or higher than a
Protected Offer.'' See Section 2(21) of the Plan. A ``Protected
Bid'' and ``Protected Offer'' generally means a bid or offer in an
option series, respectively, that is displayed by a Participant, is
disseminated pursuant to the Options Price Reporting Authority
(``OPRA'') Plan, and is the Best Bid or Best Offer. See Section
2(17) of the Plan. A ``Best Bid'' or ``Best Offer'' means the
highest bid price and the lowest offer price. Section (2)(1) of the
Plan. ``Protected Bid'' and ``Protected Offer,'' together are
referred to herein as ``Protected Quotation.'' See Section 2(18) of
the Plan.
    \15\ Section 5(a)(ii) of the Plan.
    \16\ Section 5(b) of the Plan.
    \17\ Subparagraphs (ii), (vii), and (viii), respectively, of
Section 5(b) of the Plan.
    \18\ Subparagraphs (i), (iii), (vi), (ix), (xi), and (iv)-(v),
respectively, of Section 5(b) of the Plan.
    \19\ Subparagraph (x) of Section 5(b) of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan also requires each Participant to establish, maintain, and
enforce written rules that: require its members reasonably to avoid
displaying locked and crossed markets; assure the reconciliation of
locked and crossed markets; and prohibit its members from engaging in a
pattern or practice of displaying locked and crossed markets; subject
to exceptions as may be contained in the rules of the Participant, as
approved by the Commission.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Section 6 of the Plan. The Plan also contains provisions
relating to the operation of the Plan including, for example,
provisions relating to the entry of new parties to the Plan;
withdrawal from the Plan; and amendments to the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Exchange's Proposal

    To implement the Plan, the Exchange proposes to replace its current
rules relating to the Old Plan with new rules relating to the Plan, and
makes amendments to other rules as necessary to conform to the
requirements of the Plan.\21\ As such, the Exchange proposes to adopt
all applicable definitions from the Plan into the Exchange's rules.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ A more detailed description of the Exchange's proposed rule
change may be found in the Notice, supra, note 3.
    \22\ Proposed NYSE Arca Rule 6.92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to prohibit its members from
effecting Trade-Throughs, unless an exception applies.\23\ Consistent
with the Plan, the Exchange also proposes exceptions to the prohibition
on trade throughs relating to: System issues; trading

rotations; crossed markets; intermarket sweep orders; quote flickering;
non-firm quotes; complex trades; customer stopped orders; stopped
orders and price improvement; and benchmark trades.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Proposed NYSE Arca Rule 6.94(a).
    \24\ Proposed NYSE Arca Rule 6.94(b)(1)-(10). In addition, the
Exchange proposes to add ISOs as a new type of order under proposed
NYSE Arca Rule 6.62(z).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes a rule to address locked and crossed
markets, as required by the Plan.\25\ Specifically, the Exchange
proposes that, except for quotations that fall within a stated
exception, members shall reasonably avoid displaying, and shall not
engage in a pattern or practice of displaying, any quotations that lock
or cross a Protected Quote.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ A ``locked market'' is defined as a quoted market in which
a Protected Bid is equal to a Protected Offer. Proposed NYSE Arca
Rule 6.92(a)(9). A ``crossed market'' is defined as a quoted market
in which a Protected Bid is higher than a Protected Offer. Proposed
NYSE Arca Rule 6.92(a)(5).
    \26\ Proposed NYSE Arca Rule 6.95(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes four exceptions to the prohibition against
locked and crossed markets: When the Exchange is experiencing a
failure, material delay, or malfunction of its systems or equipment;
when the locking or crossing quotation was displayed at a time where
there is a crossed market; when an Exchange member simultaneously
routes an ISO to execute against the full displayed size of any locked
or crossed Protected Bid or Protected Offer; and, with respect to a
locking quotation, when the order entered on the Exchange that will
lock a Protected Bid or Protected Offer, is (i) not a customer order,
and the Exchange can determine via identification available pursuant to
the OPRA Plan that such Protected Bid or Protected Offer does not
represent, in whole or in part, a customer order; or (ii) a customer
order, and the Exchange can determine via identification available
pursuant to the OPRA Plan that such Protected Bid or Protected Offer
does not represent, in whole or in part, a customer order, and, on a
case-by-case basis, the customer specifically authorizes the member to
lock such Protected Bid or Protected Offer.\27\ The Exchange believes
that, in most cases, locked market maker quotes are good for the
investing public, but recognizes that the benefits of a locked market
become more complicated when one or both of the locking quotations
represent a customer order. Where there is market interest willing to
trade with a customer, the Exchange believes that the customer order
should be filled. Thus, the Exchange proposes that it would not exempt
from the locked market prohibition situations involving customer orders
unless the customer entering the locking order specifically authorizes
the lock on a case-by-case basis.\28\ As a result, its members would
not be permitted to lock another Participant's quotation unless the
Exchange can establish that the quotation on the other Participant's
market is not for the account of a customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Proposed NYSE Arca Rule 6.95(b)(1)-(4).
    \28\ NYSE Arca noted that it can envision a customer authorizing
a lock when the fees associating with trading against the locked
market make the execution price uneconomical to the customer. See
Notice, supra note 3 at 28080.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes rules to permit it to continue to accept
P/A Orders and Principal Orders from Participating Options Exchanges
that are not able to send ISOs in order to avoid Trade-Throughs.\29\
The Exchange noted that, even upon the approvals of the Plan and the
implementing rules of the various Participating Options Exchanges, it
is possible that not all the Participants will be functionally able to
operate pursuant to the Plan. Thus, the Exchange has proposed to retain
certain rules governing the receipt of P/A Orders and Principal Orders
until such time that all Participating Options Exchanges are operating
pursuant to the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Proposed NYSE Arca Temporary Rule 6.96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to delete certain provisions of NYSE
Arca rules to reflect the Exchange's withdrawal from the Old Plan.\30\
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 10.12, the
Exchange's Minor Rule Plan, to replace references to the Old Plan with
references to the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 28080-81, discussing proposed
changes to NYSE Arca Rule 6.33, Commentaries .02-.04 to NYSE Arca
Rule 6.35, and NYSE Arca Rule 6.76A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\31\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \32\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be 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. The Commission also finds that the
proposal is consistent with Rule 608(c) of Regulation NMS under the
Act, which requires that each exchange comply with the terms of any
effective national market system plan of which it is a participant.\33\
Finally, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the Plan.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \33\ 17 CFR 242.608(c). Section 1 of the Plan provides in
pertinent part that, ``The Participants will submit to the
[Commission] for approval their respective rules that will implement
the framework of the Plan.''
    \34\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed NYSE Arca Rule 6.92 would define applicable terms in a
manner that are substantively identical to the defined terms of the
Plan. As such, the Commission finds that proposed amendments to NYSE
Arca Rule 6.92 are consistent with the Act and the Plan.
    Proposed NYSE Arca Rule 6.94(a) would prohibit members from
effecting Trade-Throughs unless an exception applies. Proposed NYSE
Arca Rule 6.94(b) would provide for ten exceptions to the general
Trade-Through prohibition, relating to systems issues, trading
rotations, crossed markets, ISOs, quote flickering, non-firm quotes,
complex trades, customer stopped orders, stopped orders and price
improvement, and benchmark trades.\35\ Aside from the proposed
exception relating to systems issues, each proposed exception would be
substantively identical to the parallel exception under Section 5(b) of
the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Proposed NYSE Arca Rule 6.94(b)(1)-(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The systems issues exception under proposed NYSE Arca Rule
6.94(b)(1) would implement the parallel exception available under
Section 5(b)(i) of the Plan and would permit the Exchange to bypass the
Protected Quotation of another Participant if such other Participant
repeatedly fails to respond within one second to incoming orders
attempting to access its Protected Quotations. The Exchange's rule
would require the Exchange to notify such non-responding Participant
immediately after (or at the same time as) electing self-help, and
assess whether the cause of the problem lies with the Exchange's own
systems and, if so, take immediate steps to resolve the problem.
Finally, the Exchange would be required to promptly document its
reasons supporting any such determination to bypass a Protected
Quotation. The Commission believes that this exception should provide
the Exchange with the

necessary flexibility for dealing with problems that occur on an away
market during the trading day. At the same time, the exception's
requirements to immediately notify such away market of its
determination and also assess its own system should help prevent the
use of this exception when there in fact is a problem with the
Exchange's own systems, rather than those of an away market.
    The Commission notes that included among the exception in proposed
NYSE Arca Rule 6.94(b) would be an exception for certain transactions
involving ISOs.\36\ An order identified as an ISO would be immediately
executable by the Exchange (or any other Plan Participant that received
such an order) based on the premise that the market participant sending
the ISO has already attempted to access all better-priced Protected
Quotations up to their displayed size. The Commission believes that
this exception should help ensure more efficient and faster executions
in the options markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Proposed NYSE Arca Rule 6.94(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, in addition to these rules regarding
Trade-Throughs, the Plan requires that each Participant establish,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to prevent Trade-Throughs in that Participant's
market that do not fall within an applicable exception and, if relying
on such exception, that are reasonably designed to assure compliance
with the terms of the exception. In addition, the Commission notes that
the Plan requires each Participant to conduct surveillance of its
market on a regular basis to ascertain the effectiveness of such
policies and procedures and to take prompt action to remedy any
deficiencies in such policies and procedures.
    Accordingly, the Commission finds that proposed NYSE Arca Rule 6.94
is consistent with Section 5 of the Plan and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
\37\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed NYSE Arca Rule 6.95(a) would require Exchange members to
reasonably avoid displaying, and not engage in a pattern or practice of
displaying, any quotation that locks or crosses a Protected Quotation,
subject to certain exceptions delineated in proposed NYSE Arca Rule
6.95(b). The Commission recognizes that locked and crossed markets may
occur accidentally and cannot always be avoided. However, the
Commission believes that giving priority to the first-displayed
Protected Bid or Protected Offer, particularly when it includes a
public customer's order, will encourage price discovery and contribute
to fair and orderly markets. Therefore, the Commission believes that
the proposed rule, which corresponds to the Plan's language, to require
members to reasonably avoid displaying, and not engaging in a pattern
or practice of, locks and crosses is appropriate.
    Proposed NYSE Arca Rule 6.95(b) would permit four exceptions to the
Exchange's general rule relating to locked and crossed markets.\38\ The
first three would be similar to analogous certain trade-through
exceptions under proposed NYSE Arca Rule 6.94(b), and relate to when
the Exchange is experiencing systems issues, when there is exists a
crossed market, and when a member simultaneously routes ISOs against
the full displayed size of any locked or crossed Protected Bid or
Protected Offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Section 6 of the Plan permits exceptions to the Plan's
locked and crossed market rules as may be contained in the rules of
a Participant approved by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fourth exception would permit an order entered onto the
Exchange to lock a Protected Bid or Protected Offer when such order is:
(1) not a customer order, and the Exchange can determine that such
Protected Bid or Protected Offer does not represent, in whole or in
part, a customer order; or (2) a customer order, and the Exchange can
determine that such Protected Bid or Protected Offer does not
represent, in whole or in part, a customer order and, on a case-by-case
basis, the customer specifically authorizes the Exchange's member to
lock such Protected Bid or Protected Offer. This exception would not
protect a market maker quote or broker-dealer order from being locked.
    The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposed rules relating
to locked and crossed markets are consistent with the Plan and the Act
and should help ensure that the display of locked or crossed markets
will be limited and that any such display will be promptly reconciled.
The Commission also believes that each of the proposed exceptions to
locked and crossed markets relate to circumstances when it is
appropriate to permit a limited, narrow exception to the general locked
and crossed market rule.
    In particular, the Commission believes that the fourth exception is
appropriate because it would protect customer orders that are Protected
Bids or Protected Offers from being locked, and would only permit a
customer order entered on to the Exchange to lock a Protected Bid or
Protected Offer when a customer specifically authorizes an Exchange
member, and only when such Protected Bid or Protected Offer itself does
not represent, in whole or in part, a customer order. Because of the
rapidity with which options quotes are often updated today,
particularly in response to changes in the underlying, there is an
increasing likelihood that market maker quotations will lock each
other. The proposed exception accounts for this dynamic by not
prohibiting such locking instances. Importantly, the proposed exception
in the Exchange's rules that the Commission is approving would allow
non-customer orders to lock an away market's Protected Quotation only
if the Exchange is able to affirmatively determine that the Protected
Quotation on the away market is not, in whole or in part, for the
account of a customer. If any portion of such away market's Protected
Quotation is for the account of a customer, such Protected Quotation
may not be locked. In addition, the Commission notes that the rule
requires that such determination be made via identification available
pursuant to the OPRA Plan, which is working with the participating
options exchanges on a method to so identify customer quotations
through OPRA. The Exchange has represented that, absent the ability to
identify a customer quote as part of an exchange's BBO, the Exchange
would assume that the quote represents, in whole or in part, a customer
order. As such, the Exchange has represented that it would not permit
its members to avail themselves of this exemption unless the away
market has informed the Exchange that it would designate all customer
orders as such in OPRA and such exchange's quotation does not contain
such designation. Finally, the Exchange has represented that if an
exchange chooses not to identify its customer quotations, the Exchange
would treat all of such exchange's quotations as customer orders and,
absent application of another exception, would not permit locks of such
quotations.
    Therefore, the Commission finds that Exchange's rule regarding
locked and crossed markets appropriately implements Section 6 of the
Plan, and is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the

Act \39\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds that proposed NYSE Arca Temporary Rule
6.96, which facilitates the participation of certain Participating
Options Exchanges who may require the use of P/A Orders and Principal
Orders after implementation of the Plan, is consistent with the Act.
Although the Commission has already approved the Plan,\40\ the
Commission also recognizes that there may be one or more Participating
Options Exchanges that may require a temporary transition period during
which they may want to continue to utilize these order types that exist
currently under the Old Plan.\41\ The Exchange and each of the other
Participating Options Exchanges have proposed substantially identical
temporary provisions to accommodate this possibility.\42\ Thus, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule relating to the Exchange's
receipt and handling of P/A Orders and Principal Orders, and imposing
certain obligations on the Exchange with respect to such orders that
are similar to those that exist under the Old Plan, is appropriate and
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \43\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Plan Approval, supra, note 5.
    \41\ The Commission notes that any Participating Options
Exchange that wishes to utilize such order types in a manner that
would result in a Trade-Through would need to separately request an
exemption from the Plan for such use.
    \42\ The Commission notes that the rules contained in NYSE Arca
Temporary Rule 6.96 are not required by the Plan, but rather are
rules proposed by the Exchange in order to facilitate the
participation in the Plan of certain exchanges during an initial
transition period.
    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission finds that NYSE Arca's other proposed
changes, including the proposed modifications to NYSE Arca Rule 6.33,
Commentary .02-.04 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.35, NYSE Arca Rule 6.76.A, and
NYSE Arca Rule 10.12 are appropriate and consistent with the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\44\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2009-45), as
modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-20537 Filed 8-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 65 (Friday, April 3, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18951-18952]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07038]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0144; FRL-10007-08]

Notice of Receipt of Requests To Voluntarily Cancel Certain
Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of requests
by registrants to voluntarily cancel certain pesticide registrations.
EPA intends to grant these requests at the close of the comment period
for this announcement unless the Agency receives substantive comments
within the comment period that would merit its further review of the
requests, or unless the registrants withdraw its requests. If these
requests are granted, any sale, distribution, or use of products listed
in this notice will be permitted after the registrations have been
cancelled only if such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with
the terms as described in the final order.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 30, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0144, by one of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center
(EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001.
    Submit written withdrawal request by mail to: Information
Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. ATTN: Christopher Green.
    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or
delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on
commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about
dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Green, Information
Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or

CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to
one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed
as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    This notice announces receipt by EPA of requests from registrants
to cancel certain pesticide products. registered under FIFRA section 3
(7 U.S.C. 136a) or 24(c) (7 U.S.C. 136v(c)). The affected products and
the registrants making the requests are identified in Tables 1and 2 of
this unit.
    Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant or if the Agency
determines that there are substantive comments that warrant further
review of this request, EPA intends to issue an order in the Federal
Register canceling the affected registrations.

                      Table 1--Product Registrations With Pending Requests for Cancellation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Registration No.                Company No.          Product name             Active ingredients
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
70488-1.................................           70488  Phonewipe.................  Benzenemethanaminium, N,N-
                                                                                dimethyl-N-(2-(2-(4-
                                                                                (1,1,3,3-
                                                                                tetramethylbutyl)phenoxy)
                                                                                ethoxy)ethyl)-, chloride.
82544-1.................................           82544  Silver Assembly with        Silver.
                                                           Washing Machine.
82544-2.................................           82544  Silver Assembly...........  Silver.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for
all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by
EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the
EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 of this
unit.

         Table 2--Registrants Requesting Voluntary Cancellation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             EPA  company  No.                Company name and address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
70488.....................................  Advantus Corp., 12276 San
                                             Jose Blvd., Bldg. 618,
                                             Jacksonville, FL 32223.
82544.....................................  Samsung Electronics Co.,
                                             Ltd. Agent Name: Keller And
                                             Heckman, LLP, 1001 G Street
                                             NW, Suite 500 West,
                                             Washington, DC 20001.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a
registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of
its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or
more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request,
EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal
Register.
    Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(B)) requires that
before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide
a 30-day public comment period on the request for voluntary
cancellation or use termination. In addition, FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(C)
(7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(C)) requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment
period on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any
minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless:
    1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or
    2. The EPA Administrator determines that continued use of the
pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
    The registrants listed in Table 2 of Unit II have not requested
that EPA waive the 180-day comment period. Accordingly, EPA will
provide a 180-day comment period on the proposed requests.

IV. Procedures for Withdrawal of Request

    Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for product
cancellation should submit the withdrawal in writing to the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. If the products have been
subject to a previous cancellation action, the effective date of
cancellation and all other provisions of any earlier cancellation
action are controlling.

V. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
that are currently in the United States and that were packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
cancellation action.
    In any order issued in response to these requests for cancellation
of product registrations EPA proposes to include the following
provisions for the treatment of any existing stocks of the products
listed in Table 1 of Unit II.
    For voluntary product cancellations, registrants will be permitted
to sell and distribute existing stocks of voluntarily canceled products
for 1 year after the effective date of the cancellation, which will be
the date of publication of the cancellation order in the Federal
Register. Thereafter, registrants will be prohibited from selling or
distributing the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II., except for
export consistent with FIFRA section 17 (7 U.S.C. 136o) or for proper
disposal.
    Persons other than the registrant may sell, distribute, or use
existing stocks of canceled products until supplies are exhausted,
provided that such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the
terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the
canceled products.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: March 26, 2020.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2020-07038 Filed 4-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9692-9697]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04265]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9074; Product Identifier 2016-NM-097-AD; Amendment
39-19213; AD 2018-05-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -
114, and -115 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, and -214 airplanes; and
Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by reports of engine fan cowl door (FCD) losses on airplanes
equipped with CFM56 engines due to operator failure to close the FCD
during ground operations. This AD requires modification and re-
identification, or replacement, of certain FCDs. This AD also requires
installation of a placard. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective April 11, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 11,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 44 51; 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<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9074.

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-
9074; 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 street address for the Docket Office (telephone
800-647-5527) is Docket 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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus
Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114,
and -115 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, and -214 airplanes; and Model
A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes. The SNPRM published in
the Federal Register on September 27, 2017 (82 FR 44974) (``the
SNPRM''). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2016 (81
FR 65980) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM was prompted by reports of engine
FCD losses on airplanes equipped with CFM56 engines due to operator
failure to close the FCD during ground operations. The NPRM proposed to
require modification and re-identification, or replacement, of certain
FCDs. The NPRM also proposed to require installation of a placard. The
SNPRM proposed to add airplanes to the applicability and expand the
list of affected FCD part numbers. We are issuing this AD to prevent
in-flight loss of an engine FCD and possible consequent damage to the
airplane.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2016-0257, dated December 16, 2016 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model
A318-111 and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115
airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, and -214, airplanes; and Model A321-
111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Fan Cowl Door (FCD) losses were reported on aeroplanes equipped
with CFM56 engines. Investigation results confirmed that in all
cases the fan cowls were opened prior to the flight and were not
correctly re-secured. During the pre-flight inspection, it was then
not detected that the FCD[s] were not properly latched.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to in-
flight loss of a FCD, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane
and/or injury to persons on the ground.
    Prompted by these events, new FCD front latch and keeper
assembly were developed, having a specific key necessary to un-latch
the FCD. This key cannot be removed unless the FCD front latch is
safely closed. The key, after removal, must be stowed in the flight
deck at a specific location, as instructed in the applicable
Aircraft Maintenance Manual. Applicable Flight Crew Operating
Manuals have been amended accordingly. After modification, the FCD
is identified with a different Part Number (P/N). Airbus issued
Service Bulletin (SB) A320-71-1068 to provide the modification
instructions. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016-0069 to require
modification and re-identification of [affected] FCD[s] [or
replacement of affected FCDs].

    After that [EASA] AD was published, FCD P/N 238-0301-509 was
identified as missing in the list of affected FCD P/N[s] provided in
the [EASA] AD.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirement of EASA AD 2016-0069, which is superseded, and expands
the list of affected FCD P/N[s].

    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-2016-
9074.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the SNPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment. In addition to its general
agreement with the proposed requirement to implement the new latches on
the FCDs, Delta Airlines (Delta) provided the following comments on the
SNPRM.

Request To Specify Which FCDs Require Modification

    Delta requested that we specify which FCDs need to be modified by
listing the affected FCD serial numbers in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3)
of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM). Delta stated that Airbus confirmed
that only a specific set of serial numbers is affected.
    We acknowledge that Delta provided additional information from
Airbus regarding certain FCD serial numbers. However, Delta did not
provide substantiation that only the FCDs with those serial numbers are
subject to the identified unsafe condition. The State of Design
Authority (EASA) and Airbus have determined that FCDs with certain part
numbers (P/Ns), which are identified in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h),
(i), and (k) of this AD, as ``Old P/N,'' rather than the serial numbers
that Airbus provided to Delta, are affected by the unsafe condition. If
an operator can provide substantiation that certain FCDs may be
exempted from the AD requirements based on having a type design which
mitigates the risk and provides an adequate level of safety, they may
apply for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with the
procedures in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD. We have not changed this AD
in this regard.

Request To Remove Requirement for Placard Installation

    Delta requested that we remove the proposed requirement to install
a placard at the applicable location specified in paragraph (g)(2) of
the proposed AD (in the SNPRM). Delta noted that FCD keys are
considered ground support equipment by Airbus and are routinely stored
at ground operating stations. Delta suggested that since FCD keys are
not required to be stored on an airplane, requiring a placard where the
keys may or may not be located creates an undue regulatory burden on
operators. Delta pointed out that if the placard was missing from an
airplane, that airplane would be out of compliance and could not be
operated. Delta added that Airbus has indicated that the placard and
key locations are not safety related.
    We partially agree with the commenter's request. We agree that the
proposed placard requirements were too stringent. However, we have
determined that some means of advising the flight and maintenance crews
of the location of the FCD keys is necessary. We have revised paragraph
(g)(2) of this AD to allow flights, for a time period not to exceed 10
days, when one or both engine FCD keys or the placard are damaged or
missing. We have also revised paragraph (g)(2) of this AD to allow an
alternate key stowage location in the flight deck and installation of a
placard for identification of the stowage location, provided the keys
can be consistently retrieved from that flight deck location.

Request To Remove Reference to Certain Instructions for Installing
Replacement FCDs

    Delta requested that the alternative actions in paragraphs (h) and
(l)(2) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) to install replacement FCDs
using instructions ``. . . approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA)'' be removed from the proposed AD
(in the SNPRM). Delta claimed that the safety issue being addressed is
the latching of the FCDs, not their installation. Delta noted that the
SNPRM would allow on-wing work on FCDs that were installed as specified
in the airplane maintenance manual (AMM), and suggested that same
method should be acceptable for installing a new or modified FCD. Delta
requested that either the requirement to use ``approved'' instructions
be removed or the term ``approved'' be changed to allow a method
``accepted'' by the FAA; EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA, which would allow
operators to use procedures in the existing AMM. Delta requested that
if this change is not made, the ``Costs of Compliance'' section of this
AD be updated to reflect the $3,555 Airbus would charge Delta to
approve the existing AMM procedure for the actions specified in
paragraphs (h) and (l)(2) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM).
    We disagree with the commenter's request. Installation of a new
part using procedures that are not approved in the specified manner
might result in an inadvertent introduction of an unsafe condition. We
have coordinated with Airbus and EASA and agreed that the installation
must be done in accordance with the approved methods specified in
paragraphs (h) and (l)(2) of this AD. In addition, we recognize that in
accomplishing the requirements of any AD, operators might incur
``incidental'' costs in addition to the ``direct'' costs that are
reflected in the cost analysis presented in the AD. However, the cost
analysis in ADs typically does not include incidental costs. We have
not changed this AD in this regard.

Change to Applicability

    In paragraph (c)(2) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM), we
inadvertently included Airbus Model A320-216 airplanes. We did not
intend to include Model A320-216 airplanes in the applicability of this
AD because the MCAI was already added to the required airworthiness
action list (RAAL) for Model A320-216 airplanes. We have removed Model
A320-216 airplanes from the applicability of this final rule.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously, and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
SNPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the SNPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-71-1068, Revision 01, dated
April 28, 2016. This service information describes procedures for
modifying the left-hand and right-hand FCDs on engines 1 and 2;
installing a placard; and re-identifying both the left-hand and right-
hand FCDs with a new part number. 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 affects 400 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on
            Action                  Labor cost      Parts cost            Cost per product               U.S.
                                                                                operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification, placard           Up to 11 work-          $9,730  $10,665 (for two engines)..........   $4,266,000
 installation, and re-           hours x $85 per
 identification (or              hour = $935.
 replacement) of FCD.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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 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 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.

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):

2018-05-04 Airbus: Amendment 39-19213; Docket No. FAA-2016-9074;
Product Identifier 2016-NM-097-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 11, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, certificated in any
category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD,
all manufacturer serial numbers.
    (1) Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -214 airplanes.
    (4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of engine fan cowl door (FCD)
losses on airplanes equipped with CFM56 engines due to operator
failure to close the FCD during ground operations. We are issuing
this AD to prevent in-flight loss of an engine FCD and possible
consequent damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Modification of Affected FCDs

    Within 35 months after the effective date of this AD, accomplish
concurrently the actions in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of
this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1068, Revision 01, dated April 28,
2016.
    (1) Modify the left-hand and right-hand FCDs on engines 1 and 2
that have an old part number (``Old P/N''), as applicable, as
specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this
AD.
    (2) Install a placard on the box located at the bottom of the
120-volt unit (120 VU) panel, or at the bottom of the coat stowage,
as applicable to airplane configuration. Revenue flights with one or
both FCD keys missing from the stowage location in the flight deck,
or the placard missing or damaged, are permitted for a period not to
exceed 10 days. An alternate key stowage location in the flight deck
and installation of a placard for identification of the stowage
location is permitted in accordance with the operator's FAA accepted
maintenance/inspection program, provided the keys can be
consistently retrieved from that flight deck location when needed.
    (3) Re-identify the modified left-hand and right-hand FCDs with
the new part number (``New P/N''), as applicable, as specified in
table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR18.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR18.001

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

(h) Optional Replacement of Affected FCDs With New Door Design

    Replacing the FCDs having a P/N listed as ``Old P/N'' in table 1
to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD with the FCDs having
the corresponding P/Ns listed as ``New P/N'' in table 1 to
paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD is acceptable for
compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3) of
this AD. The replacement must be done in accordance with
instructions 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) Compliance Information for Airplanes on Which Airbus Modification
157517 Is Embodied

    Accomplishment of Airbus modification 157517 on an airplane in
production is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(3) of this AD, provided that no FCD having
a part number identified as ``Old P/N'' in table 1 to paragraphs
(g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD is installed on that airplane.

(j) Compliance Information for Airplanes on Which Airbus Modification
157519 or Modification 157521 Is Embodied

    Accomplishment of Airbus modification 157519 or modification
157521 on an airplane in production is acceptable for compliance
with the requirements of paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.

(k) Parts Installation Prohibition

    (1) For any airplane with any FCD installed having a P/N
identified as ``Old P/N'' in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i),
and (k) of this AD as of the effective date of this AD: No person
may install on an airplane a part number identified as ``Old P/N''
in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD after
accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD on that
airplane.
    (2) For any airplane with only FCDs installed having P/Ns that
are identified as ``New P/N'' in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h),
(i), and (k) of this AD as of the effective date of this AD: No
person may install on any airplane a part number identified as ``Old
P/N'' in table 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD as
of the effective date of this AD.

(l) Installation of Approved Parts

    Installation on an airplane of a right-hand or left-hand FCD
having a part number approved after the effective date of this AD is
acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (g)(1)
and (g)(3) of this AD for that airplane only, provided the
conditions specified in paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) of this AD are
met.
    (1) The part number must be 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.
    (2) The FCD installation must be accomplished in accordance with
airplane modification 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.

(m) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-71-1068, Revision 00, dated December 18, 2015.

(n) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (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 International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (o)(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: 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 EASA; or Airbus's EASA
DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.

(o) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0257, dated December 16,
2016, 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-2016-9074.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (p)(3) and (p)(4) of this AD.

(p) 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1068, Revision 01, dated
April 28, 2016.

    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) 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
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 22, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-04265 Filed 3-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA/ OECA/ METD/ ETB 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2060 0325 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants For Source Categories: Gasoline Distribution ( Stage I) 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart R 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable): EPA ICR Control Number  1659.04 9. Keywords: Air Pollution Control, Clean Air Act, Environmental Protection 10. Abstract: Respondents are owners/ operators of bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline breakout stations that store and transfer gasoline. Respondents submit periodic exceedance reports, compliance reports, emission control data, and information on operating parameters needed to determine compliance with the standards.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 263 b. Total annual responses 526 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 32,575 d. Current OMB inventory 32,575 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change N/ A 2. Adjustment N/ A 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 851 c. Total annualized cost requested 851 d. Current OMB inventory 851 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change N/ A 2. Adjustment N/ A 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. Program evaluation f. Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Julie Tankersley Phone: 202 564 7002 OMB 83 I 10/ 95