CORRECTIONS TO LOADS CALCULATED FROM PERMIT COMPLIANCE SYSTEM ( PCS) DISCHARGE DATA EPA conducted a screening level review of facilities in specific industry groupings. One data source for this review was EPA's Permit Compliance System ( PCS) data ( located on EPA's mainframe).

EPA used year 2000 data from PCS, along with the Effluent Data Statistics ( EDS) program, SIC/ Point Source Category ( PSC) Crosswalk, Chemical Abstract Service ( CAS) registry numbers, and EAD's Toxic Weighting Factors ( TWFs), to develop the PCSLoads2000 database tool. PCSLoads2000 is a Microsoft Access   database that presents the estimated pollutant loadings discharged by facilities, industries, and point source categories. The development of this database is discussed in more detail in the report entitled Development of PCSLoads2000, dated December 12, 2003. The data dictionary for the PCSLoads2000 database is entitled PCSLoads2000 Data Dictionary, dated December 12, 2003.

During the course of the PCS analysis, several data corrections were made to data that were calculated or reported incorrectly in PCS. These data corrections are listed in the addendum to Development of PCSLoads2000. The recalculation of three facilities' data is detailed in this document. The three facilities are:

° Washington Aqueduct, Dalecarlia Plant  Washington, D. C. Facility ID: DC0000019 ° Sloss Industries Corporation  Birmingham, AL Facility ID: AL0003247 ° Duke Energy South Bay  Chula Vista, CA Facility ID: CA0001368 Table 1 . Mainframe PCS Data and Loads Calculation Results for NPDES ID DC0000019 Discharge Pipe Measurement Date Flow Measurement Quantity Average Value ( MG) Aluminum, Total Measurement Concentration Average Value ( mg/ L) Calculated Aluminum Load ( kg)

1/ 31/ 2000 2/ 29/ 2000 6.1 1322 30,563 3/ 31/ 2000 0 4/ 30/ 2000 5.1 2183 42,195 5/ 31/ 2000 7.1 1094 29,438 6/ 30/ 2000 7.1 1094 29,438 7/ 31/ 2000 0 8/ 31/ 2000 5.1 1850 35,759 9/ 30/ 2000 6.4 2707 65,661 10/ 31/ 2000 0 11/ 30/ 2000 0 12/ 31/ 2000 5.1 2980 57,600 290,655 1/ 31/ 2000 0 2/ 29/ 2000 0 3/ 31/ 2000 0 4/ 30/ 2000 0 5/ 31/ 2000 0 6/ 30/ 2000 30.1 374 42,666 7/ 31/ 2000 0 8/ 31/ 2000 0 9/ 30/ 2000 0 10/ 31/ 2000 0 11/ 30/ 2000 0 12/ 31/ 2000 0 42,666 1/ 31/ 2000 0 2/ 29/ 2000 7 748 19,844 3/ 31/ 2000 0 4/ 30/ 2000 0 5/ 31/ 2000 0 6/ 30/ 2000 0 7/ 31/ 2000 0 8/ 31/ 2000 0 9/ 30/ 2000 0 10/ 31/ 2000 0 11/ 30/ 2000 0 12/ 31/ 2000 0 19,844 TOTAL ALUMINUM ( kg/ year)

TOTAL ALUMINUM ( kg/ year)

TOTAL ALUMINUM ( kg/ year) 2 3 4 Washington Aqueduct, Dalecarlia Plant  Washington, D. C. Background: This facility had unusually high TWPEs due to aluminum loads. PCS mainframe data were checked and the discharges were found to be calculated incorrectly by EDSS because of intermittent releases. Change: The aluminum loads were recalculated using mainframe PCS data.

The mainframe PCS data for this facility's aluminum and flow discharge is presented in Table1 with the calculated load. It was assumed that the discharge reported was a batch discharge, instead of a constant concentration. The load was calculated based on this assumption. The monthly loads were calculated from the mainframe data using the following calculation:

Million Gallons x 1,000,000 Gallons x 3.79 liters x mg x kg = kg Million Gallon Gallon Liter 1,000,000 mg For example, the 2/ 29/ 2000 load from pipe 2 is calculated as:

6.1 Million Gallons x 1,000,000 Gallons x 3.79 liters x 1322 mg x kg = 30,563 kg Million Gallon Gallon Liter 1,000,000 mg The monthly loads were summed to determine the yearly load from each discharge pipe. Sloss Industries Corporation  Birmingham, AL Background: This facility was reviewed because it had unusually high TWPEs due to benzo( a) pyrene loads. PCS mainframe data was checked and the discharge was found to be calculated incorrectly by EDSS because of intermittent releases. Change: The benzo( a) pyrene loads were recalculated using mainframe PCS data.

The mainframe PCS discharge data listed one discharge of Benzo( a) pyrene in 2000. A discharge of 0.339 pounds per day was reported on December 31, 2000. A new load for benzo( a) pyrene was estimated using the following calculation:

0.339 pounds x 365 days = 123.74 pounds day Year Year Table 2. Mainframe PCS Data and Loads Calculation Results for NPDES ID CA0001368 Measurement Date Flow Measurement Quantity Average Value ( MGD) Chlorine Measurement Concentration Average Value ( mg/ L) Calculated Chlorine Load, kg/ day 1/ 31/ 2000 560.37 < 50 0.00 2/ 29/ 2000 460.13 < 50 0.00 4/ 30/ 2000 399.48 61 92.36 5/ 31/ 2000 449.97 70 119.38 6/ 30/ 2000 561.7 50 106.44 7/ 31/ 2000 588.5 70 156.13 8/ 31/ 2000 580.6 40 88.02 9/ 30/ 2000 532.8 50 100.97 Daily Average 94.76 Daily Average * 365 day/ year 34,585.76 Duke Energy South Bay  Chula Vista, CA Facility ID: CA0001368 Background: This facility had unusually high TWPEs due to chlorine loads. PCS mainframe data was checked and the discharge was found to be reported incorrectly. The permit limit units were mg/ L; the load was assumed to be reported in ug/ L. EDSS used the permit limits to calculate the load. Change: The chlorine loads were recalculated using mainframe PCS data for chlorine with the correct units.

The mainframe PCS data for this facility's chlorine and flow discharge is presented in Table 2 with the calculated load.

The monthly loads were calculated from the mainframe data using the following calculations:

Million Gallons x 1,000,000 Gallons x 3.79 liters x ug x kg = kg Day Million Gallon Gallon Liter 1,000,000,000 ug day For example, the chlorine load for 4/ 30/ 2000 was calculated as:

460.13 MG x 1,000,000 Gallons x 3.79 liters x 61 ug x kg = 106.4 kg Day MG Gallon Liter 1,000,000,000 ug day The daily average load was calculated and multiplied by 365 days per year to determine the yearly load, 34,586.76 kg of chlorine per year. As of 12/ 12/ 2003, due to a transcription error, the value recorded in PCSLoads2000_ v3 was 34,985 kg/ yr. This error will not have an impact on the industry rankings.


Early Action Compact Technical Advisory Committee and Public Meeting Thursday, January 22, 2004, 10: 00 AM Department of Environmental Quality 707 North Robinson   1st Floor Meeting Room Oklahoma City, Oklahoma An Oklahoma Early Action Compact Technical Advisory and Public Meeting was held at 10: 00 am on January 22, 2004 at the 1st floor Oklahoma City Department of Environmental Quality Meeting Room, 707 North Robinson, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Present for the meeting:

Technical Advisory Committee Members: Steve Moyer, Sinclair Oil Corporation, Primary David Branecky, OG& E Energy, Alternate Nancy Graham, INCOG, Primary Leon Ashford, DEQ Erik Snider, EPA Region 6 Doug Rex, ACOG Gary Collins, Terry Industries, General Industry, Primary Public: Ralph Morris, ENVIRON Kit Wagner, Atmospheric Information Systems Stuart Chai, City of OKC Kim Kohler, OIPA Jane Sutter, ACOG Paul W. Matthews, Oklahoma Highway Users Zach Taylor, ACOG Josie Adams, ACOG Tim Armer, INCOG Sam Shehab, ODOT Larry Hopper, COTPA DEQ Staff:

Eddie Terrill Scott Thomas Beverly Botchlet Smith Kendal Cody Morris Moffett Matt Paque Toni Payne Lee Warden Myrna Bruce Julia McWhirter Sign in sheet is attached.

Meeting Summary Eddie Terrill welcomed everyone the Early Action Compact Technical Advisory Committee ( TAC) and Public Meeting for Oklahoma City and Tulsa. He stated DEQ appreciates everyone coming; he felt we needed to have this initial meeting in order for Ralph Morris to share with us where we are with modeling. Everyone needs to know exactly where we are, because we are going to have to make some decisions on control strategies both here and in Tulsa by March 31. He also stated that we are committed to having as many meetings as necessary between now and the end of March to make sure everyone is comfortable that we are doing what we need to do in order to meet our requirements and move this process along. He stated that this is an informal meeting relative to asking questions.

Mr. Terrill introduced Ralph Morris, our liaison from ENVIRON.

Presentations:

Ralph Morris from ENVIRON gave a presentation on the 1999 Base Case Model Performance and Sensitivity Results.

Environ provided a current status on the modeling effort in support of the EAC agreements. Results documented in the 1999 Base Case Model Performance Evaluation and Sensitivity Report ( http:// www. deq. state. ok. us/ AQDnew/ EACreport. htm) were presented. In this document, the performance of the base case runs presented at the October meeting were reported and tested with updated boundary conditions provided by Community Multiscale Air Quality ( CMAQ) model results from EPA. Broad cut sensitivity analyses were also conducted per the October recommendation of the Technical Advisory Committee to test model sensitivity. The model proved to be sensitive to both VOC and NOx reductions in anthropogenic emissions.

The Environ presentation also provided updates in the modeling effort subsequent to the December report. Included in these updates were corrections to the area source inventory, revised 1999, 2002 and 2007 base case modeling, 2007 8 hour ozone design value projections and ozone source apportionment.

The preliminary conclusions are that regional NOx controls in Oklahoma are the most beneficial, although local NOx disbenefits occur in Tulsa and Oklahoma City. Regional VOC controls in Oklahoma are only effective at reducing ozone in and immediately downwind of Tulsa and OKC and mitigate some ( but not all) of the NOx disbenefits. Effectiveness of Oklahoma emission controls is dampened by contributions of ozone transport.

Erik Snider stated that we will have to show attainment using the 1999 ( 1998 2000) Design Value ( DV) of 93 00b. Nancy Graham stated that they were happy to see they will need to use the highest value of 93 ppm, and that all the controls required for an attainment demonstration should guarantee that Tulsa will remain in attainment for a long time.

Ralph Morris, in response to a question from Doug Rex, about how our model performance rates compared to the other models he has worked with, responded that this model is about average.

Federal Perspective   with comments from the public: Erik Snider talked with the group and fielded questions about the Federal Perspective.

  Erik spoke about the Read Vapor Pressure ( RVP) and the Clean Air Act ( CAA), and the status on the 8 Hour Implementation Plan. He explained that EPA issued source guidance back in 1997 pertaining to Section 211 of the Act. He noted there is a restriction on local areas doing more stringent rules beyond federal measures on fuels. He stated some of the concern is commerce related, restricting commerce, etc. Typically, areas in non attainment have been restricted from using RVP.

  Erik discussed the conditions and the waiver request required under CAA Part A, Section 211, that an area must meet to qualify to use as State Implementation Plan ( SIP) creditable reductions in the Attainment Demonstration Modeling.

Nancy Graham asked about whether other areas have been granted waivers, and his response was that even some nonattainment areas have been denied a waiver. She also asked if the fact that we have a very short timeline to get reductions would qualify us to obtain a waiver. Erik's response was  possibly, then pointed out that we could do the low RVP voluntarily and count it as our 3% voluntary control measure.

  Erik told us that Austin is looking at Inspection and Maintenance ( I& M) and energy efficiency measures like Light Emitting Diode ( LED) stoplights for control measures, and NE Texas is looking at voluntary controls on oil and gas production. Doug Rex asked what is the minimum controls we can do, and Erik's response was that EPA has not determined the answer to that question because of the large spectrum of possibilities.

  Eddie Terrill suggested that the most efficient use of our time and modeling effort would be for the DEQ, INCOG, and ACOG to hold some conference calls to determine what controls to model.   Lee Warden asked if any other EAC areas are showing attainment, and Erik responded that NE Texas is special because they used 1999 met data and 2002 emissions data to show attainment.

  Lee asked how do we show attainment using a Weight of Evidence ( WOD) demonstration, and Erik said to start with, you need to show that the 96 ppb 4th high in 2000 is an outlyer, then develop all of the possible supporting documentation that points to attainment in 2007. He stated that the restriction on WOE is that the future year modeling ( 2007) must show a 90 ppb or less.

  Nancy Graham asked if we could require a 30% NOx reduction on point sources. Steve Moyer clarified that Nancy did not intend to include refineries in the 30% NOx reduction. He said that a 30% reduction for them would probably not be possible in the 2005 timeframe. Nancy stated that an Electric Generation representative told her that a 30% reduction of NOx would be possible for them. David Branecky stated that a 30% reduction is definitely not possible in the 2005 timeline. Eddie stated that most likely, the electric generation industry will be dealt NOx reduction requirements from Clear Skies, or EPA's Interstate Transport Rule, and DEQ does not desire to magnify their problem by requiring reductions in the interim.

  The question was raised as to what entity will control RVP levels, DEQ or Oklahoma Corporation Commission.

  Steve Moyer asked if we could participate in the EAC, but also plan to obtain some controls that would be outside the EAC ( controls that may take longer than 2005 to get in place).

  A request was made for Ralph to make a report of emissions ( elevated point, low level point, area, biogenic, nonroad mobile, and mobile) by county for the Tulsa MSA.

Next Steps/ Recommendations:

After discussion Eddie Terrill suggested a conference call with DEQ, INCOG, and ACOG within the next week. He stated that we need to get some sense of what we are going to recommend, so DEQ can have something for the Council and the Board Eddie Terrill thanked everyone for coming and participating. He stated that, again, this meeting was primarily to get Ralph here to give us some idea where we are with the modeling, and have some frank dialogue and discussion.


[Federal Register: August 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 157)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41359-41361]
[DOCID:fr17au09-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161; FRL-8945-6]
RIN 2060-A081

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel
Standard Program; Notice of Availability of Expert Peer Review Record

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') announces
the availability of documents pertaining to the expert peer review
record completed on the Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2)
Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Analysis. On May 5, 2009, EPA announced
proposed revisions to the National Renewable Fuel Standard program
(commonly known as the RFS program) as required by the Energy
Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. EISA established new
renewable fuel categories and eligibility requirements, including
setting the first ever mandatory GHG reduction thresholds for the
various categories of renewable fuels. EISA also defined the term
lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As part of proposed revisions
to the RFS program and in accordance with the EISA definition of GHG
emissions, EPA examined the GHG impacts associated with different types
of renewable fuels. Several new pieces of analysis were developed to
support this lifecycle assessment. EPA decided to initiate an
independent peer review to help respond to stakeholder concerns and to
ensure that the Agency makes decisions based on the best science
available. The Agency, in accordance

with the Office of Management and Budget and EPA peer review guidance
contracted with independent, third party sources to conduct an external
expert peer review of this work. The results of the expert peer review
are being made available to the public for notice and comment to
supplement the current record.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 25,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2005-0161, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. In addition, please mail a copy of
your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC
20503.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0161. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, please refer to the notice of
proposed rulemaking (Section XI, Public Participation, of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the proposed rulemaking document).

How Can I Access the Docket?

    All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The 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 Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

How Can I Get Copies of This Document, the Proposed Rule, and Other
Related Information?

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR- 2005-0161. The EPA has also developed a Web site for
the proposed RFS2 rule, including the notice of proposed rulemaking,
at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/index.htm. Please refer to
the notice of proposed rulemaking for detailed information on accessing
information related to the proposal, including the expert peer review
record.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia MacAllister, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI
48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; E-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Assessment and Standards
Division Hotline; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; E-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: To meet the lifecycle
requirements as defined by the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (EISA), EPA, in consultation with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), developed a
comprehensive methodology, including an assessment of significant
indirect land use impacts. EPA has specifically relied on a number of
expert peer reviewed models and data sources for individual components
of the analysis. This methodology is described in detail in both the
Preamble and Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis of EPA's Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking available at: http://www.epa.gov/OMS/
renewablefuels/#regulations.
    In addition, several new pieces of analysis were developed to
support this lifecycle assessment and these new pieces underwent
scientific expert peer review contemporaneously with the public comment
period of the rulemaking. The new pieces of analysis presented for
expert peer review were: (1) Land use modeling (use of satellite data/
land conversion GHG emission factors); (2) Methods to account for the
variable timing of GHG emissions; (3) EPA estimates of GHG emissions
from foreign crop production (modeling and data used); (4) How the
models EPA relied upon are used together to provide overall lifecycle
estimates (not a review of models themselves but how the results of
each have been used together).
    The reviews were conducted following the Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) expert peer review guidance that ensures consistent
government-wide implementation of expert peer review and according to
EPA's longstanding and rigorous expert peer review policies.
    In accordance with this guidance, EPA used independent, third-party
contractors to conduct the external expert peer review. The contractor
was responsible for identifying a list of expert reviewers and checking
for possible conflict of interest. EPA provided the contractor with a
description of expertise required and examples of experts that fit the
expertise needed for each review. EPA also provided a list of names,
submitted from several external sources, for the contractor to consider
during the selection process. Further, EPA provided charge questions
for each

review which guided the review process. For these particular expert
peer reviews, the charge questions were reviewed by OMB. As part of the
review process, the Contractor also developed the expert peer review
record which EPA is now publicly available. The expert peer reviewers
were charged with working independently and were not asked to reach a
consensus decision.
    Notice of Availability: The expert peer review records completed in
this process are now available in the public docket and available at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/index.htm.
    The docket includes: Materials provided to the expert peer
reviewers; list of names and affiliations of the expert peer reviewers;
a summary of comments, as well as comments attributable to individual
reviewers.

    Dated: August 7, 2009.
Margo T. Oge,
Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
[FR Doc. E9-19466 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 161 (Monday, August 20, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42017-42022]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17752]

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

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

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2018 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0277; Product Identifier 2017-NM-124-AD; Amendment
39-19364; AD 2018-17-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-15-17,
which applied to certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600R series airplanes,
Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes, and Model A300 F4-600R series
airplanes. AD 2017-15-17 required an inspection of the lower area of a
certain frame (FR) radius for cracking, and corrective action if
necessary. This AD requires new repetitive inspections of the forward
fitting lower radius of a certain frame for cracking, and corrective
actions if necessary. This AD was prompted by a determination that
repetitive inspections and applicable corrective actions are necessary.
We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 24, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 5,
2017 (82 FR 35644, August 1, 2017).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, Rond-Point Emile
Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36
96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected];
internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th
St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2018-0277.

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-
0277; 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 in the ADDRESSES section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, 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 to supersede AD 2017-15-17, Amendment 39-18977 (82 FR 35644,
August 1, 2017) (``AD 2017-15-17''). AD 2017-15-17 applied to certain
Airbus Model A300 B4-600R series airplanes, Model A300 C4-605R Variant
F airplanes, and Model A300 F4-600R series airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2018 (83 FR 16787). The
NPRM was prompted by a determination that new repetitive inspections of
the lower area of a certain frame radius for cracking, and corrective
actions are necessary. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection of
the lower area of a certain frame radius for cracking, and corrective
action if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to add new repetitive
inspections of the lower area of a certain frame radius for cracking,
and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct cracking in the forward fitting lower radius of a certain
frame. Such cracking could reduce the structural integrity of the
fuselage.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2017-0158, dated August 25, 2017 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-600R
series airplanes, Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes, and Model
A300 F4-600R series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Following a full stress analysis of the Frame (FR) 40 lower
area, supported by a Finite Element Model (FEM), of the post-mod
[modification] 10221 configuration, it was demonstrated that, for
the FR40 forward fitting lower radius, a crack could occur after a
certain number of flight cycles (FC).
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the
structural integrity of the fuselage.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus established
that crack detection could be achieved through a special detailed
inspection (SDI) using a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) method,
and issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A57W009-16 to provide
those inspection instructions.
    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016-0085 to require a one-time SDI
of the FR40 lower area and, depending on findings, accomplishment of
applicable corrective action(s). After that [EASA] AD was issued,
further cracks were detected, originating from the fastener hole,
and, based on these findings, it was determined that the inspection
area must be enlarged, and Airbus issued AOT A57W009-16 Revision
(Rev.) 01 accordingly. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016-0179 [which
corresponds to FAA AD 2017-15-17], retaining the requirements of
EASA AD 2016-0085, which was superseded, to extend the area of
inspection, and to require an additional inspection for aeroplanes
that were previously inspected.
    The one-time SDI for high cycle A300-600 aeroplanes was intended
to mitigate the highest risks within the fleet, pending development
of instructions for repetitive inspections.
    Since EASA AD 2016-0179 was issued, Airbus published SB A300-57-
6120 * * * [for] the inspection programme for A300-600 * * * post-
mod 10221 * * * [airplanes]. The AOT one-time inspection is
superseded by these repetitive inspection SBs. These SBs include
alternative inspection methods and repair solutions in case of
findings together with the associated inspection programme.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2016-0179, which is superseded, * * * and
defines new inspections methods with

new compliance times, including repetitive inspections, depending on
the aeroplane inspection status.

    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-
0277.

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 SAS has issued Service Bulletin A300-57-6120, dated April
28, 2017. This service information describes procedures for repetitive
inspections of the forward fitting lower radius of FR 40 for cracking,
and corrective action. 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 94 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The actions required by AD 2017-15-17, and retained in this AD,
take about 4 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85
per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the
actions that are required by AD 2017-15-17 is $340 per product.
    We also estimate that it takes about 4 work-hours per product to
comply with the new requirements of this AD, including 1 work-hour per
product for reporting. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $39,950, or $425 per product.
    We have received no definitive data that enables us to provide cost
estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in
the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for
reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with
this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden
and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA
at 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information
Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2017-15-17, Amendment 39-18977 (82 FR 35644, August 1, 2017), and
adding the following new AD:

2018-17-10 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19364; Docket No. FAA-2018-0277;
Product Identifier 2017-NM-124-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 24, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2017-15-17, Amendment 39-18977 (82 FR 35644,
August 1, 2017) (``AD 2017-15-17'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS airplanes, certificated in any
category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of
this AD, on which Airbus SAS Modification 10221 was embodied in
production.
    (1) Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.
    (2) Airbus SAS Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.
    (3) Airbus SAS Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the detection of cracking that
originated from the fastener holes in the forward fitting lower
radius of frame (FR) 40. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct cracking in the forward fitting lower radius of FR 40. Such
cracking could reduce the structural integrity of the fuselage.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definitions

    (1) For the purpose of this AD, the average flight time (AFT)
can be established by dividing the flight hours (FHs) by the flight
cycles (FCs) counted:
    (i) From first flight, for selecting the inspection threshold of
the non-repaired area.
    (ii) From repair, for selecting the inspection threshold of the
repaired area.
    (iii) From the last inspection, for selecting the inspection
interval.
    (2) For the purpose of this AD, Group 1 airplanes are those
airplanes already inspected in accordance with paragraph 4.2.2 in
Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A57W009-16, Revision 01, dated
July 13, 2016, before the effective date of this AD. Group 2
airplanes are those airplanes not inspected in accordance with
paragraph 4.2.2 in AOT A57W009-16, Revision 01, dated July 13, 2016,
as of the effective date of this AD.
    (3) For the purpose of this AD, inspection method A is a high
frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection of the radius and fastener
area. Inspection method B is a HFEC inspection of the radius and
fastener area and a rototest of the fastener hole. Both are defined
as a special detailed inspection (SDI) in this AD.

(h) Repetitive Inspections for Non-Repaired Areas

    Within the compliance time values specified in table 1 to
paragraph (h) of this AD (Group 1 airplanes) or table 2 to paragraph
(h) of this AD (Group 2 airplanes), as applicable, and, thereafter,
at intervals not exceeding the values specified in table 3 to
paragraph (h) of this AD: Do a SDI for cracking of any non-repaired
radius, fastener areas, and fastener holes, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6120,
dated April 28, 2017; except where Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-
6120, dated April 28, 2017, specifies contacting Airbus SAS for
appropriate action, before further flight, obtain instructions using
the procedures specified in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD and
accomplish those instructions.

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AU18.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AU18.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AU18.003

(i) Repetitive Inspections for Repaired Areas

    Within the compliance time values specified in table 4 to
paragraph (i) of this AD, and, thereafter, at intervals not
exceeding those same values, do a SDI for cracking of the repaired
radius, fastener areas, and fastener holes, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6120,
dated April 28, 2017; except where Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-
6120, dated April 28, 2017, specifies contacting Airbus SAS for
appropriate action, before further flight, obtain instructions using
the procedures specified in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD and
accomplish those instructions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AU18.004

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

(j) Corrective Action

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (h) or (i) of this AD: Before further flight, repair in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-57-6120, dated April 28, 2017.

(k) Reporting

    Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of
each inspection required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD to
Airbus SAS, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-57-6120, dated April 28, 2017, at the applicable time
specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD.

(l) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to
the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that
collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(m) Other FAA AD Provisions

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

the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA;
or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus SAS's EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0158, dated August 25,
2017, 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-2018-0277.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(o) 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.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
September 5, 2017 (82 FR 35644, August 1, 2017).
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6120, dated April 28, 2017.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected];
internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (5) 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.
    (6) 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 9, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-17752 Filed 8-17-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 154 (Monday, August 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48303-48306]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17349]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89468; File No. SR-NYSECHX-2020-24]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Chicago, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Governing
Liability of Directors and of the Exchange

August 4, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on July 30, 2020, the NYSE Chicago, Inc. (``NYSE Chicago''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory

organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 rules governing liability of directors and
of the Exchange, including the limits on liability for specified
circumstances, that would harmonize such rules with those of the
Exchange's affiliates NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') and NYSE
National, Inc. (``NYSE National''). The proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, 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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts 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 purpose of this proposed rule change is to change the rules
governing liability of directors and of the Exchange, including the
limits on liability for specified circumstances. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to replace Article 3, Rule 19 with new Rules 13.1
(Liability of Directors), 13.2 (Liability of Exchange), 13.3 (Legal
Proceedings Against Exchange Directors, Officers, Employees or Agents)
and 13.4 (Exchange's Costs of Defending Legal Proceedings). Proposed
Rules 13.1 through 13.4 are based on the rules set forth in NYSE Arca
Rule 14 and NYSE National Rule 13, with non-substantive differences to
use the term ``Participant'' \4\ rather than the terms ``ETP Holders,''
``OTP Holders'' or ``OTP Firms,'' which terms are not used on the
Exchange.\5\ The Exchange also proposes to delete Article 3, Rule 19,
which is the Exchange's current rule related to liability of the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Participant'' is defined in Article 1, Rule 1(s)
to mean, among other things, any Participant Firm that holds a valid
Trading Permit and that a Participant shall be considered a
``member'' of the Exchange for purposes of the Act. If a Participant
is not a natural person, the Participant may also be referred to as
a Participant Firm, but unless the context requires otherwise, the
term Participant shall refer to an individual Participant and/or a
Participant Firm.
    \5\ See NYSE Arca Rules 14.1 through 14.4 and NYSE National
Rules 13.1 through 13.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In July 2018, the Exchange and its direct parent company were
acquired by NYSE Group, Inc. (``Transaction'').\6\ As a result of the
Transaction, the Exchange became part of a corporate family including
five separate registered national securities exchanges.\7\ Following
the Transaction, the Exchange continued to operate as a separate self-
regulatory organization and with rules, membership rosters and listings
distinct from the rules, membership rosters and listings of the other
NYSE Exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83635 (July 13,
2018), 83 FR 34182 (July 19, 2018) (SR-CHX-2018-004); see also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83303 (May 22, 2018), 83 FR
24517 (May 29, 2018) (SR-CHX-2018-004).
    \7\ In addition to NYSE Arca and NYSE National, the Exchange has
two other registered national securities exchange affiliates: New
York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') and NYSE American LLC (``NYSE
American'') (collectively, the Exchange, NYSE, NYSE Arca, NYSE
National, and NYSE American, the ``NYSE Exchanges'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the Transaction, the Exchange established a rule
numbering framework in connection with the migration of the Exchange to
the NYSE Pillar platform \8\ and has aligned its trading rules with the
rules of its affiliated NYSE Exchanges in order to provide consistent
standards while operating on the Pillar platform.\9\ As part of this
effort, the proposal set forth below further harmonizes the Exchange's
rules governing liability of directors and of the Exchange, including
liability caps and related reimbursement requirements, with those of
NYSE Arca and NYSE National in order to provide uniform standards and
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85297 (March 12,
2019), 84 FR 9854 (March 18, 2019) (SR-NYSECHX-2019-03) (Notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change to
establish a rule numbering framework).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87264 (October 9,
2019), 84 FR 55345 (October 16, 2019) (SR-NYSECHX-2019-08) (Approval
Order of proposal to add rules to support the transition of trading
to the Pillar Trading Platform).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Article 3, Rule 19 (Limitation of Liability), generally
states that neither the Exchange, nor its affiliates, nor any of the
directors, officers, committee members, officials, employees,
contractors or agents of the Exchange or its affiliates would be liable
to Participants or persons associated with Participants for any loss
arising out of the use of the facilities, systems, services or
equipment provided by the Exchange or for any loss associated with an
interruption in, or in a failure or unavailability of any such
facilities, systems, services or equipment, whether or not the loss
resulted from negligence or other unintentional errors omissions or
from any other cause within or without the Exchange's control.\10\ The
rule also states that the Exchange makes no warranty as to results that
might be obtained by persons using the Exchange's facilities or
services or any data transmitted by or on behalf of the Exchange.\11\
Further, the rule bars a Participant from instituting a legal
proceeding against the Exchange, its affiliates or their directors,
officer, committee members, officials, employees, contractors or agents
for actions taken or omitted in connection with the official business
of the Exchange, except to the extent that such actions or omissions
constitute violations of the Federal securities laws for which a
private right of action exists.\12\ Finally, the rule provides that any
Participant who fails to prevail in a lawsuit or administrative
adjudicative proceeding against the Exchange or any of its officers,
directors, committee members, employees or agents, shall pay to the
Exchange all reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred
by the Exchange in the defense of such proceeding if such expenses
exceed $50,000.00.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Article 3, Rule 19(a).
    \11\ See Article 3, Rule 19(b).
    \12\ See Article 3, Rule 19(c).
    \13\ See Article 3, Rule 19(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to replace Article 3, Rule 19 with Rules
13.1 through 13.4 to add rules related to liability of directors and of
the Exchange, including the liability caps and reimbursement
requirements that are based on the rules of NYSE Arca and NYSE
National.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See note 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 13.1 would provide that any provision of the
Certificate of Incorporation, Bylaws or the Rules of the Exchange that
provides or purports to provide that the members of the Board of
Directors shall not be liable to the Exchange or its Participants for
monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty as a Manager shall not be
applied in any instance in which such liability arises directly or
indirectly as a result of a violation of federal securities laws.\15\
The Exchange does not currently

have a rule that is analogous to proposed Rule 13.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Proposed Rule 13.1 is substantively identical to NYSE Arca
Rule 14.1 and NYSE National 13.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 13.2(a) \16\ would provide that except as otherwise
expressly provided in the Exchange's rules, neither the Exchange nor
its Directors, officers, committee members, employees or agents shall
be liable to the Participants of the Exchange, or successors,
representatives or customers thereof, or to persons associated
therewith for any loss, expense, damages or claims that arise out of
the use or enjoyment of the facilities or services afforded by the
Exchange, any interruption in or failure or unavailability of any such
facilities or services, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in
respect to the business of the Exchange except to the extent such loss,
expense, damages or claims are attributable to the willful misconduct,
gross negligence, bad faith or fraudulent or criminal acts of the
Exchange or its officers, employees or agents acting within the scope
of their authority. The limitation of liability set forth in proposed
Rule 13.2(a) would not apply to violations of federal securities laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Proposed Rule 13.2(a) is substantively identical to NYSE
Arca Rule 14.2(a) and NYSE National Rule 13.2(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 13.2(a) would further provide that subject to certain
exceptions, the Exchange would have no liability to any person for any
loss, expense, damages or claims that result from any error, omission
or delay in calculating or disseminating any current or closing index
value, or any reports of transactions in or quotations for securities
traded on the Exchange. The first two paragraphs of proposed Rule
13.2(a) replace Article 3, Rule 19(a) and are based on the first two
paragraphs of NYSE Arca Rule 14.2(a) and NYSE National Rule 13.2(a)
without any substantive differences. Additionally, proposed Rule
13.2(a) would provide that the Exchange makes no warranty as to results
that might be obtained by any person or entity from the use of any data
transmitted to disseminated by or on behalf of the Exchange or any
reporting authority designated by the Exchange. This paragraph of
proposed Rule 13.2(a) replaces Article 3, Rule 19(b), and is based on
the third paragraph of NYSE Arca Rule 14.2(a) and NYSE National Rule
13.2(a) without any substantive differences.
    Proposed Rule 13.2(b) \17\ would provide that the Exchange would
compensate Participants for losses whenever custody of an unexecuted
order is transmitted by a Participant to or through the Exchange's
order routing systems, electronic book or automatic executions systems
or to any other automated facility of the Exchange. Under proposed Rule
13.2(b)(1), the Exchange would cap its liability to all Participants at
the greater of $500,000 or the amount recovered under any applicable
insurance policy in a single calendar month. The Exchange does not
currently have a rule that is analogous to proposed Rule 13.2(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Proposed Rule 13.2(b) is substantively identical to NYSE
Arca Rule 14.2(b) and NYSE National Rule 13.2(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 13.2(c) \18\ would provide that that to the extent
that all claims arising out of the use or enjoyment of the facilities
afforded by the Exchange cannot be fully satisfied because in the
aggregate they exceed the applicable maximum amount of liability
provided for, then the Exchange would allocate the maximum amount among
all such claims arising during a single calendar month based on the
proportion that each such claim bears to the sum of all such claims.
The Exchange does not currently have a rule that is analogous to
proposed Rule 13.2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Proposed Rule 13.2(c) is substantively identical to NYSE
Arca Rule 14.2(c) and NYSE National Rule 13.2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 13.2(d) \19\ would provide that in order for a
Participant to be eligible to receive compensation, claims must be made
in writing and must be submitted no later than 12 p.m. Eastern Time on
the next business day following the day on which the use or enjoyment
of the Exchange's facilities gave rise to such claims. The Exchange
does not currently have a rule that is analogous to proposed Rule
13.2(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Proposed Rule 13.2(d) is substantively identical to NYSE
Arca Rule 14.2(d) and NYSE National Rule 13.2(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 13.3 would establish requirements relating to legal
proceedings against directors, officers, employees, agents, or other
officials of the Exchange. This proposed rule replaces Article 3, Rule
19(c), and is based on NYSE Arca Rule 14.3 and NYSE National Rule 13.3
without any substantive differences.
    Proposed Rule 13.4 would establish the circumstances regarding who
is responsible for the Exchange's costs in defending a legal proceeding
brought against the Exchange. This proposed rule replaces Article 3,
Rule 19(e), and is based on NYSE Arca Rule 14.3 and NYSE National Rule
13.3 without any substantive differences.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\20\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\21\ in particular, because
it is 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that proposed Rule 13 would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system by harmonizing the Exchange's rules governing
liability of directors, liability of exchange, legal proceedings
against Exchange directors, officers, employees, or agents, and
Exchange's costs of defending legal proceedings with the approved rules
of its affiliated exchanges, NYSE Arca and NYSE National. The Exchange
believes that the proposed rules would further promote just and
equitable principles of trade by providing for consistent methodology
relating to liability for trading on affiliated exchanges that use the
same trading platform. The proposed rule change would therefore promote
consistency among the Exchange and its affiliates and make its rules
easier to navigate for the public, the Commission, and Participants.
    The proposed rule change is also intended to align the liability
caps and compensation claims requirements with the caps and
requirements currently provided by the Exchange's affiliates, NYSE Arca
and NYSE National, and would therefore provide consistent rules across
those exchanges.\22\ Consistent rules, in turn, would simplify the
regulatory requirements for Participants of the Exchange that are also
members on those affiliated exchanges. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change would provide greater harmonization among similar
rules of NYSE Arca and NYSE National, resulting in greater uniformity
and more efficient regulatory compliance. As such, the proposed rule
change would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged
in facilitating transactions in securities and would remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See note 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange notes that the proposal to adopt provisions
governing liability of directors, liability of exchange, legal
proceedings against

Exchange directors, officers, employees, or agents, and Exchange's
costs of defending legal proceedings are similar to those approved by
the Commission for a number of self-regulatory organizations. More
specifically, the Commission recently approved the Members Exchange
Form 1 application which includes Rule 11.14 (Limitation of
Liability),\23\ the Long-Term Stock Exchange Form 1 application which
includes Rule 11.260 (Limitation of Liability),\24\ and the Investors
Exchange Form 1 application which includes Rule 11.260 (Limitation of
Liability).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88806 (May 4,
2020), 85 FR 27451 (May 8, 2020) (In the Matter of the Application
of MEMX LLC for Registration as a National Securities Exchange;
Findings, Opinion, and Order of the Commission).
    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85828 (May 10,
2019), 84 FR 21841 (May 15, 2019) (In the Matter of the Application
of Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc.; for Registration as a National
Securities Exchange; Findings, Opinion, and Order of the
Commission).
    \25\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78101 (June 17,
2016), 81 FR 41142 (June 23, 2016) (In the Matter of the Application
of: Investors' Exchange, LLC for Registration as a National
Securities Exchange; Findings, Opinion, and Order of the
Commission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because all Participants would
be subject to the same limits on liability, liability caps and
reimbursement requirements. The proposed rule change is designed to
provide greater harmonization among similar rules across the Exchange's
affiliates, NYSE Arca and NYSE National, resulting in more efficient
regulatory compliance for common members.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \26\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\27\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \28\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSECHX-2020-24 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-NYSECHX-2020-24. 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 website (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 website 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSECHX-2020-24, and should be submitted
on or before August 31, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-17349 Filed 8-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 20)]
[Notices]
[Page 5561-5563]
[DOCID:fr30ja08-76]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0179; FRL-8348-2]

Experimental Use Permit; Receipt of Amendment Application

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of an application 264-EUP-140
from Bayer CropScience requesting to amend and extend the existing
experimental use permit (EUP) for the Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab
protein and the genetic material necessary for its production in event
T303-3 and T304-40 cotton plants. The Agency has determined that the
application may be of regional and national significance. Therefore, in
accordance with 40 CFR 172.11(a), the Agency is soliciting comments on
this application.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 29, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0179, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2007-0179. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket

Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov
website to view the docket index or access available documents.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Greenway, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to those persons who are interested in
agricultural biotechnology or may be required to conduct testing of
pesticidal substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA) or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA). Since other entities may also 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 person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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 e-mail. 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 submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    Bayer CropScience has requested an amendment and extension of EUP
264-EUP-140, which was first granted by EPA on February 7, 2006 and
published in the Federal Register on July 19, 2006 (71 FR 41020) (FRL-
8060-6). On March 8, 2007 this EUP was amended and published in the
Federal Register on June 20, 2007 (72 FR 34009) (FRL-8133-5). Under the
existing EUP, plantings are permitted through May 1, 2008. Bayer
CropScience is now proposing to extend the experimental program until
January 31, 2009 and to amend it by conducting testing with up to 0.018
pounds of Cry1Ab protein and the genetic material necessary for its
production in events T303-3 and T304-40 on 88.5 acres (out of 297 total
acres) planted to Cry1Ab-containing cotton. The Cry1Ab protein is
effective in controlling lepidopteran larvae such as bollworm
(Helicoverpa zea) and tobacco budworm (Heliothis virescens), which are
common pests of cotton. The proposed program will be carried out in the
States of Arizona, California, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Puerto Rico. The proposed
experimental program includes insect efficacy trials, and the
evaluation of herbicide efficacy, agronomic performance, and breeding
lines. Also proposed is the production of seed blocks to evaluate seed
production, dissemination, and

dormancy, and for harvest for future experimental field trial
plantings.

III. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    Following the review of the Bayer CropScience application and any
comments and data received in response to this notice, EPA will decide
whether to issue or deny the EUP amendment/extension request for this
EUP program, and if issued, the conditions under which it is to be
conducted. Any amendment/extension of this EUP will be announced in the
Federal Register.

IV. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    The specific legal authority for EPA to take this action is under
FIFRA section 5.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Experimental use permits.

    Dated: January 17, 2008.
W. Michael McDavit,
Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E8-1412 Filed 1-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: October 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 191)]
[Notices]
[Page 57091-57092]
[DOCID:fr01oc08-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13116-000]

Mississippi River 14 Hydro, LLC; Notice of Competing Preliminary
Permit Application Accepted for Filing, and Soliciting Comments, and
Motions To Intervene

September 25, 2008.
    On February 15, 2008, Mississippi River 14 Hydro, LLC and BPUS
Generation Development, LLC each filed a competing application,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study
the feasibility of the Mississippi River Lock and Dam No. 14
Hydroelectric Project, to be located at the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' Mississippi Lock and Dam No. 14, on the Mississippi River in
Rock Island County and Scott County, Illinois.
    Mississippi River 14 Hydro, LLC's proposed project would utilize
the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Mississippi Lock and Dam No.
14 and would consist of: (1) A proposed powerhouse containing three
generating units with an installed capacity of 26-megawatts; (2) a
switchyard; (3) a proposed 1-mile, 69-kV transmission line; and (4)
appurtenant facilities. The proposed Mississippi River Lock and

Dam 14 Hydroelectric Project would have an estimated annual generation
of approximately 139-gigawatt-hours, which would be sold to a local
utility.
    Applicant Contact: For Mississippi River 14 Hydro, LLC, Mr. Brent
L. Smith, COO, Symbiotics, LLC, P.O. Box 535, Rigby, ID 83442, phone:
(208) 745-0834.
    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Competing Application: This application competes with Project No.
13115-000 filed February 15, 2008. Competing applications were required
to be filed on or before July 10, 2008.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene: 60 days from
the issuance of this notice. Comments and motions to intervene may be
filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)
and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-
Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, documents may be
paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight copies should be
mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For more
information on how to submit these types of filings please go to the
Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13116-000) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-23067 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 251 (Thursday, December 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86918-86919]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28998]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0193; FRL 10017-31-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards
for the Dental Category (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Effluent Limitation Guidelines
and Standards for the Dental Category (OMB Control Number 2040-0287;
EPA ICR Number 2514.03), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through November 30, 2020. Public comments were previously requested
via the Federal Register on April 30, 2020 during a 60-day comment
period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is provided in the Executive
Summary.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 1,
2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to EPA, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OW-2020-0193 online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Baehr, National Program Branch,
Water Permits Division, OWM Mail

Code: 4203M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: This ICR calculates the burden and costs associated with
reporting and record-keeping activities required under the Final
Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) and Standards for the Dental
Category. For purposes of this estimate, EPA assumed all existing
dentists affected by the original rulemaking would have complied with
the One-Time Compliance Reporting by the time of this ICR renewal. This
estimate includes the effort for One-Time Compliance Reporting for new
dental offices which open during the ICR period and those which
transfer ownership and conduct annual recordkeeping. This estimate is
based on average total compensation labor rates from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics for the dental office personnel involved in collecting
and reporting the information required. This estimate also includes the
effort for control authorities to review the information submitted by
dentists that certify they meet the requirements of the final rule. EPA
estimates that there will be no start-up or capital costs associated
with the information described above. Respondent reports may contain
confidential business information. If a respondent does consider this
information to be of a confidential nature, the respondent may request
that such information be treated as confidential. All confidential data
will be handled in accordance with 40 CFR 122.7, 40 CFR part 2, and
EPA's Security Manual part III, chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Dentists, Control Authorities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR 403 & 441).
    Estimated number of respondents: 124,378 annual average (122,741
permittees and 1,637 Publicly Owned Treatment Works and States/Tribes/
Territories).
    Frequency of response: One time.
    Total estimated burden: 392,646 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $11,065,904 (per year), includes $9,671 in
non-labor costs (i.e., postage and file storage).
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 39,467 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. The burden decrease is based on the assumption that
all existing dental offices which place or remove amalgam submitted the
required One-Time Compliance Report during the prior ICR period. EPA is
assuming a one percent growth rate in dental offices and that only new
dental offices and dental offices transferring ownership will be doing
the One-Time Compliance Reporting.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2020-28998 Filed 12-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 55033]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21617]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93179; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2021-73]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change To List and Trade Shares of the Franklin Responsibly Sourced
Gold ETF Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E

September 29, 2021.
    On August 23, 2021, NYSE Arca, Inc. filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade shares of the
Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold ETF. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on September 8, 2021.\3\
The Commission has received no comments on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92840 (September 1,
2021), 86 FR 50385.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is October 23, 2021. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ designates
December 7, 2021 as the date by which the Commission shall either
approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSEArca-2021-73).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-21617 Filed 10-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P