[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46369-46372]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19183]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0493; Product Identifier 2017-NM-141-AD; Amendment
39-19389; AD 2018-18-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly
Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) 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 Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, CN-
235-300, and C-295 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports that
cracks were found on the door mechanism actuator shaft assemblies of
the nose landing gear (NLG). This AD requires repetitive inspections of
the NLG door mechanism actuator shaft assemblies having certain part
numbers, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD would also
provide an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections
for Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes. We
are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 18, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 18,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus Defense and Space Services/Engineering Support, Avenida
de Arag[oacute]n 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84;
fax +34 91 585 31 27; email [email protected]. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0493.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0493; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shahram Daneshmandi, 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 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Defense and
Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, CN-235-300, and C-295
airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 4, 2018
(83 FR 25587). The NPRM was prompted by reports that cracks were found
on the door mechanism actuator shaft assemblies of the NLG. The NPRM
proposed to require repetitive inspections of the NLG door mechanism
actuator shaft assemblies having certain part numbers, and corrective
actions if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to provide an optional
terminating action for the repetitive inspections for Model CN-235, CN-
235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes. We are issuing this AD
to address such cracking, which could lead to an in-flight NLG door
opening and possibly result in detachment of the affected door, and
consequent damage to, or reduced control of the airplane.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2017-0181, dated September 18, 2017 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model
CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, CN-235-300, and C-295 airplanes. The
MCAI states:

    Cracks were reportedly found on nose landing gear (NLG) door
actuator shaft assemblies on CN-235 aeroplanes. The subsequent
design review determined that combined or multiple rupture of the
affected shaft assembly could occur, without this being signalised
to the flight crew.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to an
in-flight NLG door opening, possibly resulting in detachment of the
affected door, with consequent damage to, or reduced control of, the
aeroplane and injury to persons on the ground.
    To address this unsafe condition, Airbus Defence & Space (D&S)
issued Alert Operators Transmissions AOT-CN235-32-0001 Revision
(Rev.) 2 and AOT-C295-32-0001 Rev. 2 to provide inspection
instructions.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
repetitive detailed (DET) or special detailed [rototest] inspections
of the NLG door actuator shaft assembly, as applicable, and,
depending on findings, corrective actions [including replacement of
any cracked component, or cracked NLG door mechanism actuator shaft
assembly with a serviceable part]. This [EASA] AD also introduces a
modification for CN-235 aeroplanes as (optional) terminating action
for the repetitive inspections as required by this [EASA] AD.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0493.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the
determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed,
except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus Defence and Space has issued Alert Operators Transmission
(AOT) AOT-CN235-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; and AOT
AOT-C295-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016. This service
information describes procedures for inspections for cracking of the
door mechanism actuator shaft assemblies of the NLG, and corrective
actions. These documents are distinct since they apply to different
airplane models.
    Airbus Defence and Space has also issued Service Bulletin SB-235-
32-0031C, dated September 22, 2016. This

service information describes procedures for modification of the NLG
door latching mechanism.
    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 14 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
           Action                  Labor cost         Parts cost       Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections................  21 work-hours x $85                $0  $1,785 per inspection  $24,990 per
                              per hour = $1,785                      cycle.                 inspection cycle.
                              per inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                           Optional Terminating Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification for Model CN-235 airplanes.......  10 work-hours x $85 per hour =           $33,626         $34,476
                                                 $850.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the inspections. We have
no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these
replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement...................................  14 work-hours x $85 per hour =           $18,720         $19,910
                                                 $1,190.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under 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):

2018-18-10 Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as
Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.): Amendment 39-19389; Docket No.
FAA-2018-0493; Product Identifier 2017-NM-141-AD.

 (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 18, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus Defense and Space S.A. airplanes
identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated
in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
    (1) Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300
airplanes.
    (2) Model C-295 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports that cracks were found on the
door mechanism actuator shaft assemblies of the nose landing gear
(NLG). We are issuing this AD to address such cracking, which could
lead to an in-flight NLG door opening and possibly result in
detachment of the affected door, and consequent damage to, or
reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definition of Affected NLG Door Mechanism Actuator Shaft Assembly

    For the purpose of this AD, an affected NLG door mechanism
actuator shaft assembly has part number (P/N) 35-42311-00 or P/N 95-
42315-00, depending on airplane model.

(h) Detailed and Rototest Inspections

    (1) For any affected NLG door mechanism actuator shaft assembly:
Before exceeding 600 flight hours accumulated by any NLG door
mechanism lever or cam since new, or within 60 flight hours after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, on the NLG
door mechanism actuator shaft assembly with the NLG actuator shaft
installed, do a detailed inspection for cracking of all installed
NLG door mechanism levers and cams, in accordance with the
instructions in Airbus Defence and Space Alert Operators
Transmission (AOT) AOT-CN235-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26,
2016; or AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016;
as applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to
exceed those specified in figure 1 to paragraph (h)(1) of this AD,
depending on the findings or corrective actions completed, as
specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, after the
previous inspection.

Figure 1 to Paragraph (h)(1) of This AD--Repetitive Inspection Intervals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Findings/Corrective action completed (after the     Interval (flight
                 previous inspection)                        hours)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NLG door vibration observed (during previous flights).               150
No findings...........................................               300
Damaged components replaced...........................               300
NLG door actuator shaft assembly replaced by new                     600
 assembly.............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) For any affected NLG door mechanism actuator shaft assembly:
Before exceeding 1,800 flight hours accumulated by the NLG door
shaft of the NLG door mechanism actuator shaft assembly since new,
or within 60 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later, do a rototest or detailed inspection of the
NLG door actuator shaft, in accordance with the instructions in
Airbus Defence and Space AOT AOT-CN235-32-0001, Revision 2, dated
October 26, 2016; or AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October
26, 2016; as applicable. Repeat the rototest or detailed inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in figure 2 to
paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, depending on the inspection method used
during the most recent inspection.

Figure 2 to Paragraph (h)(2) of This AD--Repetitive Inspection Intervals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Interval (flight
                   Inspection method                         hours)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rototest..............................................               900
Detailed..............................................               600
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) Corrective Actions

    (1) During any detailed inspection required by paragraph (h)(1)
of this AD, if any crack with a length of 18 millimeters (mm) (0.709
inches) or more is found, or if there is more than one crack with a
length of less than 18 mm (0.709 inch) found, before further flight,
replace the cracked component, or replace the NLG door mechanism
actuator shaft assembly with a serviceable part, in accordance with
the instructions of Airbus Defence and Space AOT AOT-CN235-32-0001,
Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; or AOT AOT-C295-32-0001,
Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; as applicable.
    (2) During any detailed inspection required by paragraph (h)(1)
of this AD, if a single crack with a length of less than 18 mm
(0.709 inch) is found, within 5 flight cycles after the detailed
inspection when the crack was found, replace any cracked component,
or replace the NLG door mechanism actuator shaft assembly with a
serviceable part, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus
Defence and Space AOT AOT-CN235-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October
26, 2016; or AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26,
2016; as applicable.
    (3) During any detailed or rototest inspection required by
paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, if any crack is found, before further
flight, replace the NLG door mechanism actuator shaft with a
serviceable part, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus
Defence and Space AOT AOT-CN235-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October
26, 2016; or AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26,
2016; as applicable.

(j) Replacement Not Terminating Action

    Accomplishment of any corrective action on an airplane, as
required by paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, as
applicable, is not terminating action for the repetitive detailed or
rototest inspections required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of
this AD, for that airplane.

(k) Optional Terminating Action

    For Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300
airplanes: Modification of the NLG door latching mechanism, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Defence
and Space Service Bulletin SB-235-32-0031C, dated September 22,
2016, is terminating action for the repetitive inspections required
by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, for that airplane.

(l) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, installation of an NLG door
mechanism actuator shaft assembly having P/N 35-42311-00 or P/N 95-
42315-00, or any of its components, is allowed, provided that the
part is new; or provided that the assembly or the components, as
applicable, has passed an inspection; in accordance with the
instructions of Airbus Space and Defence AOT AOT-CN235-32-0001,
Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; or AOT AOT-C295-32-0001,
Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; as applicable.

(m) Reporting Not Required

    Although Airbus Space and Defence AOT AOT-CN235-32-0001,
Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; and AOT AOT-C295-32-0001,
Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; both specify to submit certain
information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that
requirement.

(n) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the initial inspection
required by paragraph (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, and the
corrective actions required by paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3)
of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using the applicable service information identified
in paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(4) of this AD.
    (1) Airbus Space and Defence AOT AOT-CN235-32-0001, dated
September 29, 2015.
    (2) Airbus Space and Defence AOT AOT-CN235-32-0001, Revision 1,
dated February 19, 2016.
    (3) Airbus Space and Defence AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, dated
September 29, 2015.
    (4) Airbus Space and Defence AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, Revision 1,
dated February 19, 2016.

 (o) 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 (p)(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 the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus Defense and Space S.A.'s EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

 (p) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0181, dated September 18, 2017, for related
information, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the
AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0493.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Shahram
Daneshmandi, 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 (q)(3) and (q)(4) of this AD.

 (q) 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 Defence and Space AOT AOT-CN235-32-0001, Revision 2,
dated October 26, 2016.
    (ii) Airbus Defence and Space AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, Revision 2,
dated October 26, 2016.
    (iii) Airbus Defence and Space Service Bulletin SB-235-32-0031C,
dated September 22, 2016.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus Defense and Space Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de
Arag[oacute]n 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84;
fax +34 91 585 31 27; email [email protected].
    (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 Des Moines, Washington, on August 23, 2018.
James Cashdollar,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-19183 Filed 9-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 106 (Thursday, June 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35421-35423]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12873]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77926; File No. SR-CBOE-2016-045]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule To Amend the Fees Schedule

May 26, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 16, 2016, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule.\3\ Specifically,
the Exchange proposes to allow Market-Makers to designate a Trading
Permit Holder with agency operations (``Order Flow Provider'' or
``OFP'') and Order Flow Providers to designate a Market-Maker for
purposes of being able to take advantage of credits available under the
Affiliate Volume Plan (``AVP'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee change on May
2, 2016 (SR-CBOE-2016-044). On May 16, 2016, the Exchange withdrew
that filing and submitted this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, the Exchange currently has in place various
incentive programs that benefit ``affiliated'' Trading Permit Holders
(``TPHs''). Particularly, under AVP, if a TPH Affiliate of a Market-
Maker (including a Designated Primary Market-Maker (``DPM'') or Lead
Market-Maker (``LMM'')) qualifies under the Volume Incentive Program
(``VIP''), that Market-Maker will also qualify for a discount on that
Market-Maker's Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale (``Sliding Scale'')
transaction fees (``Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale Credit''). More
specifically, if a Market-Maker's Affiliate reaches Tier 2, Tier 3 or
Tier 4 of VIP, that Market-Maker will receive a Liquidity Provider
Sliding Scale Credit of 10%, 20% or 30%, respectively. Additionally, if
a Market-Maker's Affiliate receives a credit under VIP, that Market-
Maker will also receive a credit on its Market-Maker Trading Permit
fees \4\ corresponding to the VIP tier reached (10% Market-Maker
Trading Permit fee credit for reaching Tier 2 of the VIP, 20% Market-
Maker Trading Permit fee credit for reaching Tier 3 of the VIP, and 30%
Market-Maker Trading Permit fee credit for reaching Tier 4 of the VIP)
(``Access Credit''). ``Affiliate'' for purposes of AVP (i.e., the
Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale Credit and Access Credit) is currently
defined as having at least 75% common ownership between the two
entities as reflected on each entity's Form BD, Schedule A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This credit does not apply to Market-Maker Trading Permits
used for appointments in SPX, SPXpm, RUT, VIX, OEX and XEO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to expand the availability of the credits
under AVP. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to allow any Market-
Maker to designate an OFP as its ``Appointed OFP'' and any OFP to
designate a Market-Maker to be its ``Appointed Market-Maker'' for
purposes of qualifying for credits under AVP. TPHs would effectuate the
designation by submitting a form to the Exchange.\5\ The form would
need to be submitted to the Exchange by 3:00 p.m. on the first business
day of a month in order to be eligible to qualify for credits under AVP
for that month. The Exchange would view transmittal of the completed
form as acceptance of such an appointment and would only recognize one
such designation for each party once every calendar month, which
designation would remain [sic] automatically renew each month and
remain in effect unless or until the Exchange receives an email from
either party indicating that the appointment has been terminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Appointed Affiliate Form may be submitted to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposal would be available to all
Market-Makers and OFPs, even those who already have an ``Affiliate''
under the current definition. More specifically, the proposed change
would enable a Market-Maker without an Affiliate OFP (i.e., an OFP with
at least 75% common ownership between itself and that Market-Maker as
reflected on each entity's Form BD, Schedule A)--or with an Affiliate
OFP--to enter into a relationship with an Appointed OFP. Similarly, an
OFP with or without an Affiliate Market-Maker would be able to enter
into a relationship with an Appointed Market-Maker. The proposed change
increases opportunities for TPHs to qualify for credits under AVP, as
it would enable TPHs that are not currently eligible for AVP (i.e.,
doesn't have an ``Affiliate'') to avail themselves of AVP, as well as
assist TPHs that are currently eligible for AVP (i.e., has an
Affiliate) to potentially achieve a higher AVP tier, thus qualifying
for higher credits. The Exchange notes that a Market-Maker that has
both an Affiliate OFP and Appointed OFP may only qualify based upon the
volume of its

Appointed OFP. Similarly, the volume of an OFP that has both an
Affiliate Market-Maker and Appointed Market-Maker may only count
towards qualifying the Appointed Market-Maker, not Affiliate Market-
Maker, for credits under AVP (by virtue of the volume reaching
qualifying VIP tiers). The Exchange believes enabling additional
Market-Makers and OFPs to take advantage of the AVP credits will
attract more volume and liquidity to the Exchange, which will benefit
all Exchange participants through increased opportunities to trade as
well as enhancing price discovery.
    The Exchange lastly proposes to eliminate two references to the
word ``affiliated'' in the Notes section of the AVP table. The Exchange
believes that using the term ``affiliated Market-Maker'' in these
locations may be confusing in light of the proposal to also allow
``Appointed Market-Makers''. Additionally, the Exchange believes
preceding ``Market-Maker'' with ``affiliated'' is unnecessary and as
such proposes to delete it in these two instances.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, 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 Exchange
also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\8\ which provides that Exchange rules may provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its Trading Permit Holders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed change is reasonable because it
would be available to all Market-Makers and OFPs and the decision to be
designated as an ``Appointed OFP'' or ``Appointed Market-Maker'' is
completely voluntary and TPHs may elect to accept this appointment or
not. Additionally, the proposed change increases opportunities for
Market-Makers to qualify for credits under AVP, as it enables Market-
Makers that are not currently eligible for AVP credits to avail
themselves of AVP, as well as enables Market-Makers that are currently
eligible for AVP to rely on volume that potentially achieves a higher
VIP tier (and thus results in higher AVP credits). The Exchange also
notes that other Exchanges have adopted a similar concept for their own
affiliate-based incentive programs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See NYSE MKT LLC, Amex Options Fee Schedule, Section D,
Prepayment Program and Section E, Amex Customer Engagement (``ACE'')
Program. See also Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGX Options
Exchange Fees Schedule, Definitions, ``Appointed MM'' and
``Appointed OEF''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed change is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because although only Market-Makers
receive credits under AVP, Market-Makers are valuable market
participants that provide liquidity in the marketplace and incur costs
that other market participants do not incur. For example, Market-Makers
have a number of obligations, including quoting obligations that other
market participants do not have. Additionally, the Exchange notes that
incentivizing an Appointed OFP to achieve higher tiers under VIP can
result in greater customer liquidity, and the resulting increased
volume benefits all market participants. The Exchange also notes that
the credits under AVP would be available to all Appointed Market-Makers
whose Affiliate or Appointed OFP qualify. The Exchange believes
enabling additional Market-Makers to take advantage of the AVP credits
(not just those with ``Affiliates'' under the current definition) will
attract more volume and liquidity to the Exchange, which will benefit
all market participants.
    The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to permit only one designation of an Appointed Market-
Maker and Appointed OFP per calendar month because it imposes a measure
of exclusivity allowing both parties to rely upon each other's volume
executed on the Exchange and potentially increase such volume to the
benefit of all Exchange participants for that month. The Exchange also
believes that while it encourages parties to rely upon each other's
volume, limiting the exclusivity to one month also gives the parties
the flexibility to make changes if the parties' circumstances change
(e.g., if one party terminates).
    The Exchange lastly believes that eliminating the two references to
the word ``affiliated'' in the Notes section of the AVP table reduces
potential confusion, which removes impediments to and perfects the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, protects investors and the public interest.

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that the proposed changes are pro-competitive as they would
increase opportunities for additional TPHs to qualify for AVP, which
may increase intermarket and intramarket competition by incenting
Appointed OFPs and Appointed Market-Makers to bring increased volume
(including customer liquidity in order to reach higher VIP tiers, which
results in higher AVP credits), and the resulting increased volume
benefits all market participants (including Market-Makers and OFPs that
do not have Affiliates or Appointed Market-Makers or OFPs) through
increased trading opportunities and enhanced price discovery. The
Exchange also notes that limiting AVP credits to Market-Makers does not
impose an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intermarket
competition because Market-Makers are valuable market participants that
provide liquidity in the marketplace and incur costs that other market
participants do not incur. Market-Makers also have a number of
obligations, including quoting obligations that other market
participants do not have.
    Additionally, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule
changes will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act
because, as stated above, the proposed changes are intended to promote
competition and better improve the Exchange's competitive position and
make CBOE a more attractive marketplace in order to encourage market
participants to bring increased volume to the Exchange. Further, the
proposed changes only affect trading on CBOE. To the extent that the
proposed changes make CBOE a more attractive marketplace for market
participants at other exchanges, such

market participants are welcome to become CBOE market participants.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \11\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2016-045 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2016-045. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2016-045, and should be
submitted on or before June 23, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-12873 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 16, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38823-38825]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17238]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0556]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation, Islamorada Grand Prix of the Seas,
Islamorada, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation on
the waters of the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of Islamorada, FL
during the Islamorada Grand Prix of the Seas high-speed boat race.
Approximately 70 high-speed boats and personal watercraft are expected
to participate in the race, in addition to spectators. The special
local regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of race
participants, participant vessels, spectators, and the general public
on navigable waters of the United States during the event. The special
local regulation will establish two regulated areas: a race area and
buffer zone; and a spectator area. This special local regulation
prohibits non-participant persons and vessels from entering, transiting
through, anchoring in, or remaining within the race area or buffer zone
and prohibits vessels from transiting in excess of wake speed within
the spectator area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Key
West or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from daily from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on
August 19, 2017 through August 20, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0556 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 on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Scott Ledee, Waterways Management Division
Chief, Sector Key West, FL, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because insufficient time remains to publish
an NPRM and to receive public comments, as the Islamorada Grand Prix
event will occur before the rulemaking process would be completed.
Because of the dangers associated with high-speed races in the marine
environment, the special local regulation is necessary to provide for
the safety of event participants, spectators, the general public, and
vessels transiting the event area. For those reasons, it would be
impracticable to publish an NPRM.
    For the reason discussed above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making this

rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish special local regulations is 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of
the rule is to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters of the
United States during the Islamorada Grand Prix of the Seas high-speed
race event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a special local regulation that will
encompass certain waters in the vicinity of Islamorada, Florida, during
the Islamorada Grand Prix of the Seas high-speed boat race. The special
local regulation will be enforced daily from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on August
19, 2017 through August 20, 2017. The special local regulation will
establish the following regulated areas: (1) A race area and buffer
zone; and (2) a spectator area. Within the race area and buffer zone,
non-participant persons and vessels are prohibited from entering,
transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated
area without obtaining permission from the COTP Key West or a
designated representative. Within the spectator area, all persons and
vessels are prohibited from traveling in excess of wake speed without
obtaining permission from the COTP Key West or a designated
representative.
    Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit
through, anchor in, remain within, or transit in excess of wake speed
within the regulated area by contacting the COTP Key West by telephone
at ((305) 292-8772 or a designated representative via VHF radio on
channel 16. If authorization is granted by the COTP Key West or a
designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP Key West or
a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the
regulated areas by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to
Mariners, or by on-scene designated representatives.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory
costs and provides that ``for every one new regulation issued, at least
two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost
of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a
budgeting process.''
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. As this rule is not
a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the
requirements of Executive Order 13771. See the OMB Memorandum titled
``Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of
January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs''' (February 2, 2017).
    The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the
following reasons: (1) The special local regulation will be enforced
for only nine hours daily, from August 19, 2017 through August 20,
2017; (2) although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through,
anchor in, or remain within the race area or buffer zone without
authorization from the COTP Key West or a designated representative,
vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the regulated
areas; (3) persons and vessels would still be able to enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the race area and buffer zone or
transit in excess of wake speed in the spectator zone if authorized by
the COTP Key West or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast
Guard will provide advance notice of the special local regulation to
the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast
Notice to Mariners, or by on-scene designated representatives.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a special local regulation that will prohibit non-
participant persons and vessels from entering, transiting through,
anchoring in, or remaining within a limited race area and will also
prohibit persons and vessels from transiting at more than wake speed
within a limited spectator area during a two day race event lasting
nine hours daily. This rule is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting
this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add a temporary Sec.  100.T07-0556 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T07-0556  Special Local Regulations; Islamorada Grand Prix of
the Seas; Islamorada, FL

    (a) Location. The following regulated areas are established as a
special local regulation. All coordinates are North American Datum
1983.
    (1) Race Area and Buffer Zone. All waters in the vicinity of
Islamorada, FL encompassed within an imaginary line connecting the
following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 24[deg]56.300' N.,
080[deg]34.750' W.; thence west to Point 2 in position 24[deg]55.750'
N., 080[deg]35.570' W.; thence south to Point 3 in position
24[deg]55.153' N., 080[deg]35.306' W.; thence east to Point 4 in
position 24[deg]55.643' N., 080[deg]34.464' W.; thence north back to
the point of origin in position 24[deg]56.300' N., 080[deg]34.750' W.
    (2) Spectator Area. All waters in the vicinity of Islamorada
excluding the regulated area, encompassed within an imaginary line
connecting the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position
24[deg]56.17' N., 080[deg]35.08' W.; thence west to Point 2 in position
24[deg]56.02' N., 080[deg]35.30' W.; thence south to Point 3 in
position 24[deg]55.96' N., 080[deg]35.26' W.; thence east to Point 4 in
position 24[deg]56.11' N., 080[deg]35.04' W.; thence north back to the
point of origin in position 24[deg]56.17' N., 080[deg]35.08' W.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, State, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Key West in the enforcement of the regulated areas.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All non-participant persons and vessels are
prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or
remaining within the race area and buffer zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative.
    (2) All persons and vessels are prohibited from transiting in
excess of wake speed in the spectator area, unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative.
    (3) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, remain within or transit in excess of wake speed within any of the
regulated areas may contact the Captain of the Port Key West by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated representative via VHF-FM
radio on channel 16 to request authorization. If authorization is
granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must
comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Key West or a
designated representative.
    (4) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, or by on-scene
designated representatives.
    (d) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced daily from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m. on August 19, 2017 through August 20, 2017.

    Dated: August 10, 2017.
J.A. Janszen,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Key West.
[FR Doc. 2017-17238 Filed 8-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Table 1

Cooling Water Volumes for Bay Shore Power Plant

 (April 2005 – December 2006)

Table 1 (cont’d)

Cooling Water Volumes for Bay Shore Power Plant

 (April 2005 – December 2006)

Table 1 (cont’d)

Cooling Water Volumes for Bay Shore Power Plant

 (April 2005 – December 2006)

Table 1 (cont’d)

Cooling Water Volumes for Bay Shore Power Plant

 (April 2005 – December 2006)

Table 1 (cont’d)

Cooling Water Volumes for Bay Shore Power Plant

 (April 2005 – December 2006)

Table 1 (cont’d)

Cooling Water Volumes for Bay Shore Power Plant

 (April 2005 – December 2006)

Table 1 (cont’d)

Cooling Water Volumes for Bay Shore Power Plant

 (April 2005 – December 2006)

Table 2.  Estimated Source of Cooling Water for Bay Shore Plant

Table 3

Water Quality and Meteorological Data Collected During Impingement &
Entrainment Sampling

at Bay Shore Power Plant (May 2005 – December 2006)

Table 3 (cont’d)

Water Quality and Meteorological Data Collected During Impingement &
Entrainment Sampling

at Bay Shore Power Plant (May 2005 – December 2006)

Table 3 (cont’d)

Water Quality and Meteorological Data Collected During Impingement &
Entrainment Sampling

at Bay Shore Power Plant (May 2005 – December 2006)

Table 3 (cont’d)

Water Quality and Meteorological Data Collected During Impingement &
Entrainment Sampling

at Bay Shore Power Plant (May 2005 – December 2006)

Table 3 (cont’d)

Water Quality and Meteorological Data Collected During Impingement &
Entrainment Sampling

at Bay Shore Power Plant (May 2005 – December 2006)

Diel Distribution of Entrained Specimens

The diel distribution of larval and juvenile fish was recorded as part
of the entrainment abundance study.  The majority (99%) of these fish
were larvae. A detailed summary of entrainment densities is presented in
Table 4.  A peak density of 171 specimens per m3 was observed during the
night sampling event of June 13, 2005.  The majority of larvae collected
on this date (66%) were identified as freshwater drum.  Mean monthly
densities of larval and juvenile fish, are presented in Figure 1.

	Table 4

Diel Distribution of Larval and Entrainable Juvenile Fish Entrained at

Bay Shore Power Plant (May 2005 – May 2006)

Figure 1

Diel Distribution of Larval and Entrainable Juvenile Fish Entrained at

Bay Shore Power Plant (May 2005 – May 2005)

Long-Term Survival Studies

A total of six long-term survival studies were conducted over the
duration of the impingement abundance study:

The first long-term survival study was initiated on August 24, 2005.
The holding tanks for this study were split into two sections with wire
mesh to create 4 separate holding areas.  A total of 345 fish (12
species) were collected and evaluated for this study.  Immediately upon
collection, 199 fish (58%) were categorized as dead and 146 fish (42%)
were categorized as live. Of the 146 live fish evaluated for long-term
survival, only 4 fish (3%) survived 48-hours after being impinged at Bay
Shore.  Details of this survival study are summarized in Table 5.

The second long-term survival study was initiated on October 30, 2005. A
total of 1,324 fish (11 species) were collected and evaluated for this
study.  Immediately upon collection, 721 fish (54%) were categorized as
dead and 603 fish (46%) were categorized as live. These fish were split
among 3 different holding tanks.  Of the 603 live fish evaluated for
long-term survival, a total of 29 fish (5%) survived 48-hours after
being impinged at Bay Shore.  Details of this survival study are
summarized in Table 6.

The third long-term survival study was initiated on February 24, 2006. A
total of 250 emerald shiners were collected and evaluated for this
study.  Immediately upon collection, 90 fish (36%) were categorized as
dead and 160 fish (64%) were categorized as live. These fish were split
among 5 different holding tanks.  Of the 160 live fish evaluated for
long-term survival, a total of 53 fish (33%) survived 48-hours after
being impinged at Bay Shore.  Details of this survival study are
summarized in Table 7.

The fourth long-term survival study was initiated on May 4, 2006. A
total of 250 emerald shiners were collected and evaluated for this
study.  Immediately upon collection, 37 fish (15%) were categorized as
dead and 213 fish (85%) were categorized as live. These fish were split
among 5 different holding tanks.  Of the 213 live fish evaluated for
long-term survival, a total of 78 fish (37%) survived 48-hours after
being impinged at Bay Shore.  Details of this survival study are
summarized in Table 8.

The fifth long-term survival study was initiated on November 15, 2006. A
total of 105 live white perch were collected and evaluated for this
study.  These fish were split among 5 different holding tanks (15-25
fish per tank).  A total of 31 fish (30%) survived 48-hours after being
impinged at Bay Shore.  Details of this survival study are summarized in
Table 9.

The sixth long-term survival study was initiated on November 29, 2006. A
total of 250 emerald shiners were collected and evaluated for this
study.  Immediately upon collection, 90 fish (36%) were categorized as
dead and 160 fish (64%) were categorized as live. These fish were split
among 5 different holding tanks.  Of the 160 live fish evaluated for
long-term survival, a total of 53 fish (33%) survived 48-hours after
being impinged at Bay Shore.  Details of this survival study are
summarized in Table 10.

Table 5

Long-Term (48-Hour) Survival Study #1

(August 24-26, 2005)

Table 6

Long-Term (48-Hour) Survival Study #2

(October 30-November 1, 2005)

Table 7

Long-Term (48-Hour) Survival Study #3

(February 24-26, 2006)

Table 8

Long-Term (48-Hour) Survival Study #4

(May 4-6, 2006)

Table 9

Long-Term (48-Hour) Survival Study #5

(November 15 – 17, 2006)

Table 10

Long-Term (48-Hour) Survival Study #6

(November 29 – December 1, 2006)

Entrainment Data Analysis

Entrainment data were converted to a 24-hour collection period by
adjusting for sample volumes and the corresponding volume through the
screenhouse.  To calculate the base density of entrained eggs/larval
fish ((e-base), the number entrained during each sampling period was
divided by the corresponding sampling volume.    This is expressed as:

(e-base  =     Ni / Vi

where:

(e-base  	=   Base entrainment density (#/m3)

Ni 	=   Total number of eggs/larval fish entrained (10 daily samples)

Vi	=   Total volume of water filtered for 10 daily samples (m3).

Base entrainment densities were multiplied by daily flow volumes to
obtain entrainment estimates for each day.  Sample calculations for
entrained fish eggs are presented in Table 11.  Monthly entrainment
estimates were calculated using the following formula:

Estimated Number	  =    Monthly Number of Organisms   x  Total Monthly
Flow

Entrained per Month		   Monthly Sample Volume

Impingement Data Analysis

Impingement data were converted to a 24-hour collection period by
adjusting for sample duration (e.g. 24/1) and the number of active
traveling screens (e.g. 9/4).   Sample calculations are presented in
Table 12.  Monthly impingement estimates were calculated using the
following formula:

Estimated Number	  =          Monthly Number of Fish    x  Total Monthly
Flow

Impinged per Month		   Monthly Sample Volume

Table 11

Estimated Daily Entrainment of Fish Eggs at Bay Shore Power Plant (May
2005 – May 2006)

Individual estimates may not add to totals due to rounding.

Table 12

Estimated Daily Impingement of Fish at Bay Shore Power Plant

 (May 2005 – December 2006)

 Individual estimates may not add to totals due to rounding.

 This approach was discontinued as it was not possible to prevent fish
from swimming through the mesh dividers into a different holding area.

 Daily cooling water flow volumes (MGD) were obtained from the Monthly
Operating Report (MOR) for Bay Shore and are summarized in Table 1.

 While there are nine (9) functional traveling screens at Bay Shore, two
(2) screens are only turned infrequently (¼-hour to ½-hour per day).
The traveling screen adjustment for this assessment was estimated
conservatively and assumed that all nine (9) screens were active.

                     PAGE  8

                                                           PAGE  13

                  PAGE  15

                                                                PAGE  16

                 PAGE  18

                                                            PAGE  25


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17197-17198]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06344]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0677; FRL-9529-4]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Storage Vessels for
Petroleum Liquids for Which Construction, Reconstruction or
Modification Commenced After June 11, 1973 and Prior to May 19, 1978
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 19,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0677, to: (1) EPA online, using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for

review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On October 17, 2012 (77 FR 63813), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to both EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0677, which is available for either public
viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at
the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is (202)
566-1752.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov either to submit or view public comments, access
the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidentiality of Business Information (CBI), or
other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NSPS for Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids for Which
Construction, Reconstruction or Modification Commenced After June 11,
1973 and Prior to May 19, 1978 (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1797.06, OMB Control Number 2060-0442.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2013. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to either conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, and any changes,
or additions to the Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart K.
Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit an initial
notification report, performance tests, and periodic reports and
results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of
the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in
the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. Reports are required annually at a
minimum.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3
hours per response. ``Burden'' means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are the owners or operators of petroleum liquid storage
vessels.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 220.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, and annually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 769.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $74,473, which includes $74,473 in
labor costs, with no capital/startup costs, or operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase in the total
estimated respondent cost as currently identified in the OMB Inventory
of Approved Burdens. The cost increase from the most recently approved
ICR is due to the use of updated labor rates, and is not due to any
program changes. This ICR references labor rates from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics to calculate the respondent cost burden.
    There is no change to either the respondent burden hours or the
Agency burden hours and cost in this ICR as compared to the previous
ICR. This is due to two considerations: (1) the regulations have not
changed over the past three years and are not anticipated to change
over the next three years; and (2) the growth rate for the respondents
is very low, negative, or non-existent. Therefore, the labor hours in
the previous ICR reflect the current burden to respondents and are
reiterated in this ICR.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-06344 Filed 3-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 242)]
[Notices]
[Page 71671-71672]
[DOCID:fr18de07-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-30-000; Docket No. PF07-6-000]

Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Application

December 11, 2007.
    Take notice that on November 29, 2007, Colorado Interstate Gas
Company (CIG), Post Office Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944,
filed in Docket No. CP08-30-000, an application, pursuant to section 7
of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), for a certificate authorizing the
construction and operation of a new underground natural gas storage
facility in Adams County, Colorado. The proposed Totem Gas Storage
Field Project will be comprised of 13 injection and withdrawal wells, a
water disposal well, gathering pipelines, observation wells, a
dehydration and dew point control plant and a compressor station with
approximately 9,400 horsepower. CIG is also proposing to establish new
firm, interruptible and balancing rate schedules for inclusion in its
FERC Gas Tariff for services from the storage facility. CIG estimates
that the new storage facility will have a working gas

capacity of 7.0 Bcf, an injection rate of 100 MMcf per day and a
withdrawal rate of 200 MMcf per day. CIG's proposal is more fully
described as set forth in the application that is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may also be
viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three
digits, in the docket number field to access the document. There is an
``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables subscribers to
receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Richard Derryberry, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Colorado Interstate
Gas Company, P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944 at (719)
520-3782 or by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Pursuant to Sec.  157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should

submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    On March 15, 2007, the Commission staff granted CIG's request to
utilize the Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF07-6-000 to
staff activities involving CIG's proposal. Now, as of the filing of
CIG's application on November 29, 2007, the Pre-Filing Process for this
project has officially concluded. And while the PF Docket Number is now
closed, all of the information contained in the Pre-Filing Process will
become part of the certificate proceeding. From this time forward,
CIG's proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP07-30-000, as noted
in the caption of this Notice. All future correspondence should refer
to this CP docket number only.
    Comment Date: January 4, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-24414 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 222 (Monday, November 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63649-63650]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24912]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0720; FRL-10001-69]

Pesticide Registration Review; Draft Human Health and/or
Ecological Risk Assessments for Several Pesticides; Notice of
Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's draft human
health and/or ecological risk assessments for the registration review
of acequinocyl, boscalid, DBNPA, etridiazole, ethoxyquin,
fenpyroximate, flonicamid, inorganic halides, mandipropamid,
metolachlor/s-metolachlor, myclobutanil, phostebupirim (also known as
tebupirimphos), propanil, terbacil, terbuthylazine, triclopyr, ortho-
phenylphenol and salts, and phenol and salt.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 17, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, to the docket identification (ID)
number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the Table in
Unit IV, 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.
     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, are available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For pesticide specific information contact: The Chemical Review
Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in the Table in Unit
IV.
    For general questions on the registration review program, contact:
Melanie Biscoe, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), 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, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the Chemical Review Manager identified in the Table in Unit IV.

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.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. Background

    Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide
registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the
statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. As part of the registration review process,
the Agency has completed comprehensive draft human health and/or
ecological risk assessments for all pesticides listed in the Table in
Unit IV. After reviewing comments received during the public comment
period, EPA may issue a revised risk assessment, explain any changes to
the draft risk assessment, and respond to comments and may request
public input on risk mitigation before completing a proposed
registration review decision for the pesticides listed in the Table in
Unit IV. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's
registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge,
including its effects on human health and the environment.

III. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed
in the Table in Unit IV pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural
Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C.
Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the
registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under
FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only
if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA
section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must
perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food.

IV. What action is the Agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability
of EPA's human health and/or ecological risk assessments for the
pesticides shown in the following table, and opens a 60-day public
comment period on the risk assessments. This notice also announces the
availability of EPA's preliminary work plan (PWP) for mandipropamid and
opens a 60-day public comment period on the work plan.

  Table--Draft Risk Assessments Being Made Available for Public Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Chemical review
Registration review case  name    Docket ID No.     manager and contact
            and No.                                     information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acequinocyl, Case 7621........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0  Sergio Santiago,
                                 203<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 347-8606.
Boscalid, Case 7039...........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0  Lauren Weissenborn,
                                 199<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 347-
                                                    0467.
DBNPA, Case 3056..............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0  Jessie Bailey,
                                 724<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 347-0148.
Ethoxyquin, Case 0003.........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0  Matthew Khan,
                                 780<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                                    ,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Etridiazole, Case 0009........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0  Jonathan Williams,
                                 414<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 347-
                                                    0670.
Fenpyroximate, Case 7432......  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0  Carolyn Smith,
                                 572<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 347-8325.
Flonicamid, Case 7436.........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0  Eric Fox,
                                 777<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Inorganic Halides, Case 4051..  EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0  Erin Dandridge,
                                 168<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 347-0185.
Mandipropamid, Case 7058......  EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0  Michelle Nolan,
                                 536<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 347-0258.
Metolachlor/S-Metolachlor,      EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0  Ana Pinto,
 Case 0001.                      772<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Myclobutanil, Case 7006.......  EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0  Kent Fothergill,
                                 053<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 347-8299.
Ortho-phenylphenol and Salts,   EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0  Kimberly Wilson,
 Case 2575.                      524<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 347-0495.
Phenol and Salt, Case 4074....  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0  Kimberly Wilson,
                                 810<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 347-0495.
Phostebupirim (also known as    EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0  Wilhelmena
 tebupirimphos), Case 7606.      940.               Livingston,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 308-
                                                    8025.
Propanil, Case 0226...........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0  Tiffany Green,
                                 052<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 347-0341.
Terbacil, Case 0039...........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0  Steven R. Peterson,
                                 054<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 347-
                                                    0755.
Terbuthylazine, Case 2645.....  EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0  Megan Snyderman,
                                 453<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 347-0671.
Triclopyr, Case 2710..........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0  Andy Muench,
                                 576<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 347-8263.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is providing an opportunity,
through this notice of availability, for interested parties to provide
comments and input concerning the Agency's draft human health and/or
ecological risk assessments for the pesticides listed in the Table in
Unit IV. The Agency will consider all comments received during the
public comment period and make changes, as appropriate, to a draft
human health and/or ecological risk assessment. EPA may then issue a
revised risk assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk
assessment, and respond to comments.
    Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or
information in response to this document. To be considered during a
pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must
meet the following requirements:
     To ensure that EPA will consider data or information
submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information
during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider
data or information submitted at a later date.
     The data or information submitted must be presented in a
legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must
accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript
must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or
videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or
electronic form.
     Submitters must clearly identify the source of any
submitted data or information.
     Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or
information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However,
submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider
the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.
    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for
each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the
duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions
required in the final decision on the registration review case have
been completed.

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

    Dated: October 29, 2019.
Mary Reaves,
Acting Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2019-24912 Filed 11-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P