[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 123 (Monday, June 27, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41507]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15134]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124 and 125

[EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145; FRL-9948-35-OW]
RIN 2040-AF25

Notice of Extension to Comment Period on the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System: Applications and Program Updates Proposed
Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Extension of Comment Period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is extending the comment period for the notice, ``National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Applications and
Program Updates.'' In response to stakeholder requests, EPA is
extending the comment period for an additional 15 days, from July 18,
2016 to August 2, 2016.

DATES: The comment period for the notice that was published on May 18,
2016 (81 FR 31344), is extended. Comments must be received on or before
August 2, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2016-0145, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Flannery-Keith, Water Permits
Division, Office of Wastewater Management, Mail Code 4203M,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 18, 2016 EPA published in the Federal
Register (81 FR 31344) a proposed rule that would make targeted
revisions to the NPDES regulations. These revisions would make the
regulations consistent with the 1987 CWA Amendments and with applicable
judicial decisions. These revisions would delete certain regulatory
provisions that are no longer in effect and clarify the level of
documentation that permit writers must provide for permitting
decisions. EPA is also asking for public comments on potential ways to
enhance public notice and participation in the permitting process. CWA
section 402 established the NPDES permitting program and gives EPA
authority to write regulations to implement the NPDES program. 33
U.S.C. 1342(a)(1), (2). The proposed rule, as initially published in
the Federal Register, provided for written comments to be submitted to
EPA on or before July 18, 2016 (a 60-day public comment period). Since
publication, EPA has received a request for additional time to submit
comments. EPA is extending the public comment period for 15 days until
August 2, 2016.

    Dated: June 17, 2016.
Joel Beauvais,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 2016-15134 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


 Check if information below is identical to the information submitted last year. 		Reporting Period: January 1 to December 31, 20____
                                            Tier One
                           Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory
                              Aggregate Information by Hazard Type
For Official Use Only
State ID #:
Date Received:
Facility Identification
Name
Maximum No. of Occupants:
 Manned

 N/A
 Unmanned
Street
County
City
State
Zip

Latitude
Longitude
NAICS Code     Phone Number (optional)

Dun & Bradstreet Number
TRI Facility ID
RMP Facility ID:

 N/A
 N/A
Subject to Emergency Planning under Section 302 of EPCRA?
 Yes
 No
Subject to Chemical Accident Prevention under Section 112(r) of CAA (40 CFR part 68, Risk Management Program)?
 Yes
 No
Owner or Operator Information
Parent Company Information (optional)
Name
Name
Dun & Bradstreet Number

Address
Address

Phone Number
Email
Phone Number
Email
(   )

(   )

Facility Emergency Coordinator (if applicable)
Tier I Information Contact
Name
Title
Name
Title

Email Address
Email Address

Phone Number
24-hour Phone
Phone Number
(   )
(   )
(   )
                              Emergency Contacts
Name
Name

Title
Title

Phone Number
24-hour Phone
Phone Number
24-hour Phone
(   )
(   )
(   )
(   )
Email Address
Email Address

Certification:  (Read and sign after completing all sections)
I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in pages 1 through        , and that based on my inquiry of those individuals responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the submitted information is true, accurate and complete.

Name and official title of owner/ operator OR owner/operator's authorized representative

                                   Signature

                                  Date signed

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to range from 6 to 120 hours per response.  Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.  Include the OMB control number in any correspondence.  Do not send the completed form to this address.
EPA Form No. 8700-29
                           OMB Control No. 2050-0072
                                Page  1 of ----

EPA Form No. 8700-29  				OMB Control No. 2050-0072		  Page   -  - ---- of ----

 Check if information below is identical to the information submitted last year.

                                  Hazard Type
                                  Max Amount
                             Average Daily Amount
                            Number of Days On-Site
                               General Location
                                Physical Hazard
Fire

Sudden Release of Pressure

Reactive

                                 Health Hazard
Immediate (acute)

Delayed (acute)

                               REPORTING RANGES

                            WEIGHT RANGE IN POUNDS
                                  Range Codes
                                                                           From
                                                                             To
                                      01
                                                                              0
                                                                             99
                                      02
                                                                            100
                                                                            499
                                      03
                                                                            500
                                                                            999
                                      04
                                                                          1,000
                                                                          4,999
                                      05
                                                                          5,000
                                                                          9,999
                                      06
                                                                         10,000
                                                                         24,999
                                      07
                                                                         25,000
                                                                         49,999
                                      08
                                                                         50,000
                                                                         74,999
                                      09
                                                                         75,000
                                                                         99,999
                                      10
                                                                        100,000
                                                                        499,999
                                      11
                                                                        500,000
                                                                        999,999
                                      12
                                                                      1,000,000
                                                                      9,999,999
                                      13
                                                                     10,000,000
                                                        Greater than 10 million

Optional Attachments:          I have attached a site plan                            I have attached a list of site coordinate abbreviations
                                                 I have attached a description of dikes and other safeguard measures


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 30, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24525-24527]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11026]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0408]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Buffalo Carnival; Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on
Lake Erie, Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY. This safety zone is
intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the Outer Harbor during
the May 28, 2017 fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is
necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards
associated with a fireworks display.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8:45 p.m. until 9:45 p.m. on May 28,
2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0408 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

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

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that

good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be
impracticable. The final details of this event were not known to the
Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the
event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this
rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable because
it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect mariners and
vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display.
Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days
after publication in the Federal Register.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a
maritime fireworks show presents significant risks to public safety and
property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations,
dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is
needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the
navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks show is
taking place.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone on May 28, 2017 from 8:45 p.m.
until 9:45 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the
Buffalo Outer Harbor contained within a 280-foot radius of position
42[deg]52'10.75'' N. and 078[deg]52'56.01'' W. (NAD 83).
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his
designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his
designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
safety zone would be effective, and thus subject to enforcement for
only one hour late in the evening. Traffic may be allowed to pass
through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The
Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the
enforcement of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to
Mariners.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial

direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that it
is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule creates a temporary safety zone and is categorically excluded
under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction,
which pertains to establisnment of safety zones. A Record of
Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0408 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0408   Safety Zone; Buffalo Carnival, Buffalo Outer
Harbor; Buffalo, NY.

    (a) Location. This zone will encompass all waters of Buffalo Outer
Harbor, Buffalo, NY contained within a 280-foot radius of position
42[deg]52''10.76'' N. and 078[deg]52'56.01'' W. (NAD 83).
    (b) Enforcement period. This rule is effective on May 28, 2017 from
8:45 p.m. until 9:45 p.m.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his
behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of
the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: May 23, 2017.
J.S. Dufresne,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2017-11026 Filed 5-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 137 (Thursday, July 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41710-41711]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16785]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72596; File No. SR-ICC-2014-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change To Revise End-of-Day Price Discovery
Policies and Procedures

July 11, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On May 22, 2014, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change SR-ICC-2014-07 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on June 10, 2014.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters
regarding the proposed change. For the reasons discussed below, the
Commission is granting approval of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-72306 (June 4, 2014),
79 FR 33243 (June 10, 2014) (SR-ICC-2014-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    ICC is proposing to amend the ICC End-of-Day Price Discovery
Policies and Procedures (``EOD Pricing Policy'') to revise the
expectations surrounding the unwind of any Firm Trade transaction.
    ICC contends that the proposed revision to ICC's EOD Pricing Policy
is intended to make the policy more readily enforceable, while
maintaining the same or similar level of incentive for ICC Clearing
Participants to provide quality price submissions.
    ICC contends that ICC Clearing Participants (``CPs'') may be
required from time to time, under the ICC EOD Pricing Policy, to enter
into trades with other CPs as part of the ICC end-of-day price
discovery process (``Firm Trade''). ICC contends that it does not
require CPs to maintain Firm Trades as outstanding positions for any
particular length of time. Prior to the operation of this proposed rule
change, ICC has stated that the ICC EOD Pricing Policy requires CPs
that elect to unwind a Firm Trade to do so ``at the then-current market
price.'' ICC contends that there are practical difficulties with
objectively determining whether an unwind transaction was executed at
the ``then-current market price'' and therefore such policy is
difficult to enforce. ICC proposes via this rule change to revise

the ICC EOD Pricing Policy to replace references to the ``then-current
market price'' with the requirement that unwind transactions be
executed in a competitive manner. Further, ICC proposes via this rule
change to add the requirement that, upon request, CPs be able to
demonstrate to ICC's satisfaction that such unwind transaction was
executed in a competitive manner. Additionally, ICC proposes to add a
non-exclusive list of examples of how CPs may be able to demonstrate
competitive execution of unwind transactions, for example: (i)
Execution on an available trading venue (e.g., a SEF or DCM); (ii)
multiple dealer quotes received and execution of the unwind transaction
at the best quoted price; or (iii) placement of the unwind transaction
with an interdealer broker with price terms and instructions
commensurate with a competitive execution.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \4\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if the
Commission finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such self-regulatory organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act \5\ requires, among other things, that the rules of a
clearing agency are designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, to
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed revision to ICC's EOD
Pricing Policy is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to ICC, in particular, to
Section 17(A)(b)(3)(F).\6\ The Commission finds that the update to
ICC's EOD Pricing Policy regarding Firm Trade unwind transactions
clarifies the policy while maintaining the same or similar level of
incentive for CPs to provide quality price submissions. Because of the
clarification of the Firm Trade unwind requirements and the potential
increase in the enforceability thereof, CPs may have a greater
incentive to submit quality price submissions. Since quality price
submissions are an integral part of the end-of-day pricing process, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change therefore promotes the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions
and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts and
transactions and contributes to the safeguarding of securities and
funds which are in the custody or control of ICC or for which it is
responsible in a manner consistent with the Act and the regulations
thereunder applicable to ICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \7\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\8\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-ICC-2014-07) be, and
hereby is, approved.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \9\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-16785 Filed 7-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 29, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64428-64430]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25124]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 507

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-1043]

Draft Qualitative Risk Assessment of Risk of Activity/Animal Food
Combinations for Activities (Outside the Farm Definition) Conducted in
a Facility Co-Located on a Farm; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of, and requesting comment on, a document entitled ``Draft
Qualitative Risk Assessment of Risk of Activity/Animal Food
Combinations for Activities (Outside the Farm Definition) Conducted in
a Facility Co-Located on a Farm'' (the draft RA). The purpose of the
draft RA is to provide a science-based risk analysis of those activity/
animal food combinations that would be considered low risk. FDA
conducted this draft RA to satisfy requirements of the FDA Food Safety
Modernization Act (FSMA) to conduct a science-based risk analysis and
to consider the results of that analysis in rulemaking that is required
by FSMA.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft RA by
February 26, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the draft RA to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary J. Bartholomew, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-200), Food and Drug Administration, 7519
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On January 4, 2011, FSMA (Pub. L. 111-353) was signed into law.
Section 103 of FSMA, Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive
Controls, amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C
Act) to create a new section 418 with the same name. Section 418 of the
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350g) contains requirements applicable to food
facilities that are required to register under section 415 of the FD&C
Act (21 U.S.C. 350d) and mandates Agency rulemaking. Section 418(a) of
the FD&C Act is a general provision that requires the owner, operator,
or agent in charge of a facility to evaluate the hazards that could
affect food (including animal food) manufactured, processed, packed, or
held by the facility; identify and implement preventive controls;
monitor the performance of those controls; and maintain records of the
monitoring. Section 418(a) of the FD&C Act specifies that the purpose
of the preventive controls is to prevent the occurrence of such hazards
and provide assurances that such food is not adulterated under section
402 (21 U.S.C. 342). Section 418(b) of the FD&C Act requires that the
hazard analysis identify and evaluate known or reasonably foreseeable
hazards that may be associated with the facility. Sections 418(c) to
(i) of the FD&C Act contain additional requirements applicable to
facilities, including requirements for preventive controls (section
418(c)), monitoring (section 418(d)), corrective actions (section
418(e)), verification (section 418(f)), recordkeeping (section 418(g)),
a written plan and documentation (section 418(h)), and reanalysis of
hazards (section 418(i)). Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register, FDA is issuing a proposed rule (the proposed preventive
controls rule for food for animals) to implement section 418 of the
FD&C Act. FDA is using the results of the draft RA to propose to exempt
animal food facilities that are small or very small businesses that are
engaged only in specific types of on-farm manufacturing, processing,
packing, or holding activities identified in the draft RA as low-risk
activity/animal food combinations from the requirements of the FD&C Act
for hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls.
    Section 103(c) of FSMA requires rulemaking in two areas: (1)
Clarification of the activities that are included as part of the
definition of the term ``facility'' under section 415 of the FD&C Act
(Registration of Food Facilities) and (2) possible exemption from or
modification of requirements of section 418 and section 421 (21 U.S.C.
350j) (Targeting of Inspection Resources for Domestic Facilities,
Foreign Facilities, and Ports of Entry; Annual Report) of the FD&C Act
for certain facilities as FDA deems appropriate. Section 415 of the
FD&C Act directs FDA to require by regulation that any facility engaged
in manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding food for human or
animal consumption in the United States be registered with FDA. The
registration requirement in section 415 of the FD&C Act does not apply
to farms. Our regulations that implement section 415 and require food
facilities to register with FDA are established in 21 CFR part 1,
subpart H (Registration of Food Facilities).
    Section 103(c)(1)(C) of FSMA directs the Secretary of Health and
Human Services (the Secretary) to conduct a science-based risk analysis
as part of the section 103(c) rulemaking. The science-based risk
analysis is to cover: (1) Specific types of on-farm packing or holding
of animal food that is not grown, raised, or consumed on such farm or
another farm under the same ownership, as such packing and holding
relates to specific animal foods and (2) specific on-farm manufacturing
and processing activities as such activities relate to specific animal
foods that are not consumed on that farm or on another farm under
common ownership.
    Section 103(c)(1)(D)(i) of FSMA requires that the Secretary
consider the results of the science-based risk analysis and exempt
certain facilities from the requirements in section 418 of the FD&C Act
(including requirements for hazard analysis and preventive controls)
and the mandatory inspection frequency in section 421 of the FD&C Act,
or modify the requirements in sections 418 or 421 of the FD&C Act, as
the Secretary determines appropriate, if such facilities are engaged
only in specific types of on-farm manufacturing, processing, packing,
or holding activities that the Secretary determines to be low risk
involving specific animal foods the Secretary determines to be low
risk. Section 103(c)(1)(D)(ii) of FSMA provides, in relevant part, that
the exemptions or modifications described in section 103(c)(1)(D)(i)
shall apply only to small businesses and very small businesses, as
defined in the regulation issued under section 418(n) of the FD&C Act.

II. Qualitative Risk Assessment

    As explained in the draft RA, we conducted the qualitative risk
assessment to identify activity/animal food combinations that would be
considered low risk (Ref. 1). We focused on activity/animal food
combinations that we identified as being conducted on farms, but we did
not consider activity/animal food combinations that would be solely
within the farm definition (such as growing grains) and, thus, are not
relevant to the requirements of section 103 of FSMA. We considered the
risk of activity/animal food combinations rather than separately
considering the risk of

specific animal food categories because doing so better enabled us to
focus on whether a specific manufacturing, processing, packing, or
holding activity conducted on animal food on a farm warranted an
exemption from, or modified requirements for, the provisions of section
418 of the FD&C Act. In the remainder of this document, we use the term
``farm mixed-type facility'' to refer to an establishment that grows
and harvests crops or raises animals and may conduct other activities
applicable to farms and to animal food facilities co-located on farms.
    In the draft RA, we describe the approach applied to define a low-
risk activity and low-risk activity/animal food combinations to
determine activities on animal food that are out of scope of the draft
RA, and to evaluate hazards associated with activity/animal food
combinations within the scope of the draft RA (Ref. 1). We followed the
risk assessment framework of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Ref.
2), which involves hazard identification, hazard characterization,
exposure assessment, and risk characterization.
    The draft RA addresses nine specific questions:
    Question 1: What are the animal foods that would be manufactured,
processed, packed, or held by a farm mixed-type facility?
    Question 2: What are the activities that might be conducted by farm
mixed-type facilities on those animal foods?
    Question 3: What are the hazards reasonably likely to occur in
those animal foods?
    Question 4: For the purpose of determining whether an activity/
animal food combination is low risk, which hazards should be considered
to have a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health
consequences or death to humans or animals?
    Question 5: For the purpose of determining whether an activity/
animal food combination is low risk, what animal foods have inherent
controls that significantly minimize or prevent a biological hazard
that is reasonably likely to occur in these animal foods and that is
reasonably likely to cause serious adverse health consequences or death
to humans or animals?
    Question 6: What interventions significantly minimize or prevent a
hazard that is reasonably likely to occur in these animal foods and
that is reasonably likely to cause serious adverse health consequences
or death to humans or animals?
    Question 7: Which of these activities are reasonably likely to
introduce, or increase the potential for occurrence of, hazards that
are reasonably likely to cause serious adverse health consequences or
death to humans or animals and what are these hazards?
    Question 8: Which of these activities are interventions to
significantly minimize or prevent hazards that are reasonably likely to
cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals
from consumption of these animal foods?
    Question 9: Which activity/animal food combinations are low risk,
i.e., what on-farm activity/animal food combinations are not reasonably
likely to introduce hazards that are reasonably likely to cause serious
adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals or serve as
preventive controls (interventions) to significantly minimize or
prevent a hazard that is reasonably likely to cause serious adverse
health consequences or death to humans or animals?
    As discussed in the draft RA, a specific activity may have a
different classification within the classes of manufacturing,
processing, packing, and holding (with consequences for what
regulations apply to the activity) based on whether the animal food
being operated upon is a raw agricultural commodity (RAC) or a
processed animal food and whether a RAC was grown or raised on the farm
performing the activity or a farm under the same ownership (Ref. 1). In
the draft RA, we first characterize the risk of activity/animal food
combinations without the overlay of the applicable statutory and
regulatory framework. Doing so focuses the risk characterization on the
risk of the activity/animal food combinations themselves. We then add
that regulatory overlay and characterize the risk of activity/animal
food combinations in three regulatory groups shaped by the applicable
regulatory factors and the resulting activity classifications:
     Regulatory Group Type 1: Low-risk packing and holding
activities that might be conducted on a farm on animal food not grown,
raised, or consumed on that farm or another farm under the same
ownership;
     Regulatory Group Type 2: Low-risk manufacturing and
processing activities that might be conducted on a farm on the farm's
own RACs for distribution into commerce; and
     Regulatory Group Type 3: Low-risk manufacturing and
processing activities that might be conducted on a farm on animal food
other than the farm's own RACs for distribution into commerce.
    We are seeking comments that can be used to improve:
     The approach used;
     The assumptions made;
     The data used; and
     The transparency of the draft RA.
    Specifically we request comment on:
     The definitions of ``low-risk activity'' and ``low-risk
activity/animal food combination'';
     The animal food types and activity/animal food
combinations that we are considering outside the scope of the draft RA
and those we are considering within the scope of the draft RA;
     The approach to characterizing the risk of an activity/
animal food combination;
     The questions addressed by the draft RA; and
     The answers to those questions.
    We submitted a draft RA to a group of scientific experts external
to FDA for peer review and revised the draft RA, as appropriate,
considering the experts' comments. A report concerning the external
peer review is available for public review, and can be accessed from
our Web site (Ref. 3). We will consider public comments regarding the
draft RA in preparing a final version of the RA.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
the draft RA to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Electronic Access

    The draft RA is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/Products/AnimalFoodFeeds/UCM366906.pdf.

V. References

    The following references have been placed on display in the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and may be seen by
interested person between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and
are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. (FDA has
verified all the Web site addresses in this references section, but FDA
is not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after
this document publishes in the Federal Register.)

    1. FDA, ``Draft Qualitative Risk Assessment: Risk of Activity/
Animal Food Combinations for Activities (Outside the

Farm Definition) Conducted in a Facility Co-Located on a Farm,''
2012. Available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/Products/AnimalFoodFeeds/UCM366906.pdf.
    2. Codex Alimentarius Commission, ``Codex Alimentarius
Commission Procedural Manual, Twentieth Edition,'' 2011.
    3. FDA, ``Peer Review Report. External Peer Review of the FDA/
CVM Draft Qualitative Risk Assessment: Risk of Activity/Animal Food
Combinations for Activities (Outside the Farm Definition) Conducted
in a Facility Co-Located on a Farm,'' 2013. Available at http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/PeerReviewofScientificInformationandAssessments/ucm079120.htm.

    Dated: October 21, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-25124 Filed 10-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7683-7685]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02752]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1012; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00697-R;
Amendment 39-21916; AD 2022-02-19]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH
(AHD) Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD) Model EC135P1,
EC135P2, EC135P2+, EC135P3, EC135T1, EC135T2, EC135T2+, and EC135T3
helicopters. This AD was prompted by a report of restricted collective
lever movement caused by entanglement of the emergency flashlight strap
with the cargo hook emergency release lever, causing the emergency
flashlight to leave its seat. This AD requires replacing each affected
emergency flashlight with a serviceable part, as specified in a
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated
by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 17, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 17,
2022.

ADDRESSES: For EASA material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find the EASA material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. For Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH
(AHD) service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus
Helicopters,

2701 North Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-
0000 or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You may
view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Service information that is IBRed is also
available in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1012.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1012; 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
EASA AD, any comments received, and other information. The address for
Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hal Jensen, Aerospace Engineer,
Operational Safety Branch, FAA, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC
20024; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0149, dated June 21, 2021 (EASA
AD 2021-0149), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters
Deutschland GmbH (AHD) Model EC135 P1, EC135 P2, EC135 P2+, EC135 P3,
EC135 T1, EC135 T2, EC135 T2+, EC135 T3, EC635 P2+, EC635 P3, EC635 T1,
EC635 T2+, and EC635 T3 helicopters, all variants, all serial numbers
up to 820 inclusive. Model EC635 P2+, EC635 P3, EC635 T1, EC635 T2+,
and EC635 T3 helicopters are not certificated by the FAA and are not
included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet (TCDS), except where
the TCDS explains that the Model EC635T2+ helicopter having serial
number 0858 was converted from Model EC635T2+ to Model EC135T2+. This
AD, therefore, does not include Model EC635 P2+, EC635 P3, EC635 T1,
EC635 T2+, and EC635 T3 helicopters in the applicability.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Airbus Helicopters
Deutschland GmbH Model EC135P1, EC135P2, EC135P2+, EC135P3, EC135T1,
EC135T2, EC135T2+, and EC135T3 helicopters, certificated in any
category, as identified in EASA 2021-0149. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on November 23, 2021 (86 FR 66474). The NPRM was
prompted by a report of restricted collective lever movement caused by
entanglement of the emergency flashlight strap with the cargo hook
emergency release lever, causing the emergency flashlight to leave its
seat. The NPRM proposed to require replacing each affected emergency
flashlight with a serviceable part, as specified in EASA AD 2021-0149.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address entanglement of the emergency
flashlight strap with the cargo hook emergency release lever. See EASA
AD 2021-0149 for additional background information.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA reviewed the relevant
data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these helicopters. Except for minor editorial changes,
including updating the name ``Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH'' to
``Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD)'' to match its FAA TCDS
type certificate holder name, adding the Other Related Service
Information section to describe Airbus Helicopters service information,
correcting the issuance date of EASA AD 2021-0149 in the Applicability
paragraph, and reformatting and updating the Costs of Compliance
section, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0149 requires replacing each affected emergency
flashlight with a serviceable part. EASA AD 2021-0149 also specifies
that an affected part can be modified and re-identified into a
serviceable part. EASA AD 2021-0149 also prohibits the installation of
an affected part.
    This material 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.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin ASB
EC135-25A-032, Revision 0, dated May 20, 2021. This service information
specifies procedures to remove the strap from the emergency flashlight
and what part number to write on the flashlight.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 335 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on
these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this AD.
    Replacing an emergency flashlight takes about 1 work-hour and parts
cost about $219 for an estimated cost of $304 per flashlight.
Alternatively, modifying an emergency flashlight takes about 1 work-
hour for an estimated cost of $85 per flashlight.

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2022-02-19 Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD): Amendment 39-
21916; Docket No. FAA-2021-1012; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00697-
R.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective March 17, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD)
Model EC135P1, EC135P2, EC135P2+, EC135P3, EC135T1, EC135T2,
EC135T2+, and EC135T3 helicopters, certificated in any category, as
identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-
0149, dated June 21, 2021 (EASA 2021-0149).

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2510, Flight
Compartment Equipment.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of restricted collective lever
movement. Subsequent inspection determined that the emergency
flashlight was stuck under that lever caused by entanglement of the
emergency flashlight strap with the cargo hook emergency release
lever, causing the emergency flashlight to leave its seat. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address entanglement of the emergency
flashlight strap with the cargo hook emergency release lever. The
unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced control
of the helicopter, resulting in damage to the helicopter and injury
to occupants.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2021-0149.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0149

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0149 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) This AD does not mandate compliance with the ``Remarks''
section of EASA AD 2021-0149.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) 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.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Hal Jensen,
Aerospace Engineer, Operational Safety Branch, FAA, 950 L'Enfant
Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20024; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0149,
dated June 21, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2021-0149, EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668
Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find the
EASA material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1012.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on January 18, 2022.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-02752 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 137)]
[Notices]
[Page 41918-41919]
[DOCID:fr19jy10-128]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62491; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2010-086]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Delay the Application of NASDAQ Rule 4611(d)

July 13, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 12, 2010, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NASDAQ'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a non-
controversial rule change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

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

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

    The Exchange is filing this proposed rule change to delay the
application of NASDAQ Rule 4611(d) for an additional 180 days. The text
of the proposed rule change is available at http://
nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/, at the Exchange's principal office, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On January 13, 2010, the Commission approved SR-NASDAQ-2008-104
which established new standards for sponsored access as set forth in
NASDAQ Rule 4611(d), NASDAQ's Market Access Rule.\4\ On March 17, 2010,
NASDAQ proposed to delay implementation of the Market Access Rule,
based upon conversations with industry participants.\5\ NASDAQ believes
that market participants need additional time to implement the Market
Access Rule. Accordingly, NASDAQ is proposing to delay for an
additional 180 days the implementation of new NASDAQ Rule 4611(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61345 (Jan. 13, 2010)
(``NASDAQ Market Access Approval Order'').
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61770 (Mar. 24, 2010)
(SR-NASDAQ-2010-039).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the
public interest. The proposal is consistent with these obligations
because market participants require additional time to comply with the
new market access provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the proposed rule change: (i) Does not significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not
impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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 requested the Commission to waive this five-day
pre-filing notice requirement. The Commission hereby grants this
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2010-086 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2010-086. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NASDAQ-2010-086, and should be submitted on or before August 9, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-17494 Filed 7-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Key Discussion Points from NESCAUM/WESTAR/States Meeting -- October 23-24, 2012

Participants:
Lisa Rector, NESCAUM
Dan Johnson, WESTAR
John Barnes, New York DEC
Louis Fontaine, Maine DEP
Lisa Herschberger, Minnesota PCA
Rachel Sakata, Oregon DEQ
Rod Tinnemore, Washington DOE
Amanda Aldridge, EPA
Larry Brockman, EPA
David Cole, EPA
Jason DeWees, EPA

John Dupree, EPA
Chebryll Edwards, EPA
Greg Green, EPA
Roy Huntley, EPA
Robin Segal, EPA
Larry Sorrels, EPA
Mike Toney, EPA
Gil Wood, EPA
Bill Huang, EC/R
Beth Friedman, EC/R
Graham Fitzsimons, EC/R

Minneapolis, MN Meeting
   * Will try to bring in different points of views.
   * 90 attendees from all stakeholders.

State Needs [Note: Unless specified otherwise, all items in this summary are presented from the NESCAUM/WESTAR/States' viewpoints and may or may not represent EPA's views.]
   * States want a stringent rule, but more importantly, need EPA to expedite completion of this rulemaking.
         o EPA stated the original proposal package cleared OAR and OP, but was refused by OMB.  The new goal is to get a proposal that OMB will accept.
   * Revision to the standard is 16 years overdue and the current rule does not reflect the requirements in the Clean Air Act (CAA) for a NSPS.  Furthermore, states need a federal regulation to address changes in the marketplace and continuing airshed issues from this source category.  The rule needs mechanisms to making it easier to revise the rule in the future.
         o EPA is trying to figure out the best way to get it done, and with something states can get behind.
         o EPA stated that looking at cost effectiveness ($/ton) is always an important parameter.
   * The type of reductions needed depends on a variety of issues.
   * EPA should adopt standards consistent with a rigorous application of the statutory requirements of NSPS to move the industry toward designing and building the cleanest burning devices.
   * EPA should re-visit their economic analysis to ensure appropriate analysis for consumer products application.

Form of the Standard
   Issues
   * States are concerned about units defining themselves out of the regulatory process.
         o The rule needs to have broad enough definitions of devices to avoid loopholes.
   * States want to ensure a level playing field for similar device types.
   * The rule needs to ensure that units, regardless of size, do not create local exposure issues hence the need for all devices to have a g/hr standard.

   States Recommendations
      * EPA should compress emissions standards into three categories: room heaters, central heating devices and thermal storage devices.
                  o             Room heaters would include indoor woodstoves both catalytic and non-catalytic, single burn rate stoves, and pellet stoves.
                  o             Central heating devices would include hydronic heaters, boilers, and furnaces.
                  o             Thermal storage devices (both full and partial storage units) would include central heaters with hot water storage and masonry heaters.
      * The recommend metric for each category:
            o Room heaters  -  gram per hour standard
            o Central heating devices  -  heat output standard and mass over time standard
            o Thermal storage devices  -  heat output standard and mass over time standard

Level of Standard
   PM
   * The preferable and the best option for environmental performance would be to set  a stringent emission standard at the level of the best performing units, but the hurdle may be too high.
   * The second option is, within the NSPS categories, to create "bins" to tier best performing units.
         o There is an overall support for the "bin" concept from EPA and states.
         o Binning would be in place upon promulgation.  The states would want Bin 1, the lowest, to eventually go away.
               # EPA stated that Bin 1 can't go away for wood stoves based on the current cost analysis.
         o Bin 1 represents the status quo consistent with Washington (WA) standards and the majority of wood stove models (<4.0 g/hr).  Bin 2 reflects the average emission rates for the top 50% best performing units (<2.5 g/hr).  Bin 3 reflects the average emission rates for the top 12% best performing units (<1.3 g/hr).
         o The states recognized the need for lower cost/ton if one were to phase out Bin 1 for woodstoves.
         o The states noted that they are still working  to identify emission limit for units with storage devices.
         o States believe that Binning would promote and incentivize the development and sale of advanced technologies in the near-term, and accommodate a smooth transition to cleaner burning units by allowing manufacturers to continue to sell most current technology devices for a period of time while they design for the future.
         o In general states prefer tighter emission limits even if it means slightly longer compliance deadlines.

   CO
   * NESCAUM will develop CO AERMOD analysis for other device types in addition to the analyses they presented for hydronic heaters.
   * EPA says that industry says there is not enough data to justify setting a weighted average CO level.
         o EPA agreed that the proposal should require CO testing  and reporting for each certification test.
         o States pointed out that Europe has had a CO standard at max burn rate for a long time without a separate type of test method.
   * States believe EPA needs to identify potential CO limits at least for Category 4 burn rate.
         o They believe PM does not always correlate to CO.
   * States suggested that CO could be added to existing LADCO mobile emissions sampling units.

   Efficiency
   * States want more specificity with regards to necessary elements with CSA B415 for efficiency testing.
   * Greg Green will set up a meeting with OAP to discuss DOE contacts for potentially conducting tests to support wood boilers/furnaces efficiency standards.

Economic Analysis
   Key Issues
   * What is the incremental cost/ton for emission limits to support an NSPS at tighter than the Washington state standards?
         o EPA stated the acceptable national number for PM would likely need to be less than $10,000/ton, but $3,000/ton would be very good.

   Items to Investigate
   * Incremental cost of new models rather than full start up.
   * Analysis of extending compliance time for more stringent standard.
   * Co-benefit analysis

   Outstanding Issues
   * Analysis of cost benefit from other pollutants
         o Since EPA thought PM cost/ton was high, states want to know what is the cost/ton of PAH, CO, NOx, VOC and other pollutants, and if any of these are reasonable to move forward with.
         o States also want EPA to consider risk reduction and the sum of total pollutant reduction.
         o States would also like to see a discussion of the added benefits to local communities where wood smoke is a problem.
   * Control technologies for wood stoves and hydronic heaters
         o Cost of add-on catalyst technology (e.g., clearstak/clearskies)
         o Lisa Rector will reach out to European manufacturers for use and costs of residential ESPs
               # EPA will reach out to retrofit catalyst folks.

New Test Procedure
   Short Term Strategies
   * If states can write a new procedure by the end of the year, EPA promised to consider including it in  this NSPS (likelihood of states meeting this date is low).
   * EPA noted that there is authority for manufacturers to request alternative test methods for units that cannot use Method 28.
   * EPA has precedents of allowing the use of Method 301 procedures for new technologies and methods (but this would have to show equivalence with the test methods and associated emission limits).
   * EPA noted that there could be potential for Bins 2 and 3 to have different test methods in addition to different emission limits.

   Long Term Strategies
   * Develop for next rulemaking or use by states or petition to use in lieu.
   * States prefer to add measures to increase precision of current method (e.g., 3 replicate test runs), though this is not necessary for this rule.
   * States are interested in developing a stakeholder process to create a new method, but they not supportive of using the ASTM process.

Key Focus Areas for Improving Test Procedures
   * Move to the use of cordwood as soon as practical.
   * Standardize fuel for testing with a standardized density range
   * Improve standardization of test operation protocols to challenge units under normal operating conditions and reasonable worst case conditions.
   * Need to ensure that the method has flexibility to allow testing of new technologies, including oxygen sensors and other devices.
   * Accurate measurement of semi-volatiles with losses minimized to the greatest extent possible.
   * Emission rates for start up, steady state and shutdown periods.
   * Multiple runs at the same level rather than data for only one run from multiple categories.

Existing Test Procedure
   * Goal of State Recommendations
      o Improve precision of the test.
      o Limit opportunities to "game" the test and increase precision.
      o Eliminate elements (and associated costs) that do not add value.
      o Characterize maximum emission rate.

      *       Areas of Improvement
      o Fuel
      o Device operation
      o Measurement method
      o Efficiency testing

Fuel
   Issues
            *       States sense that for many devices current charge is a partial charge.
            *       Fuel type and specifically density is a critical parameter to ensure precision  -  wide variability in density can have substantial impact on emission outcome

   States' Recommendations
            *       Move to density range within the species required by the method.  If this requirement would change the basis for emission levels then at a minimum density measurements should be recorded and reported.
            *       Tighten weight range per Paul Tieg's recommendation to less than 10%.
                        o          EPA stated that a lot of Paul Tieg's recommendations are already in the current draft.
            *       Provide the option to determine fuel as a percentage of firebox volume.
            *       Investigate ways to use cord and crib in this method.
                        o          EPA suggested that perhaps manufacturers be allowed the choice to test with either fuel for entry via bin 1, but must use cordwood and meet the standard for bin 2/3 designations.

Device Operation
   Issues
            *       Start-up times provide an opportunity to "tinker."
            *       Variation in coal bed can have a significant impact on emission outcome and reducing coal bed variation will increase precision.
            *       Category 2 and 3 burns add cost and do not add value in terms of characterizing maximum emission rates.

   States' Recommendations
            *       Limit the start up time based on Paul Tieg's recommendations.
            *       Tighten the range of the coal bed to +-1 %.
            *       Eliminate category 2 and 3 burn categories and move to only require category 1 and 4 (with at least 70% of the weighting applied to category 1).
            *       Replicate testing (2 additional runs in whichever category is higher or perhaps category 1 TBD from workgroup).
            *       No averaging of categories  -  set emission standard by burn category.

Measurement
   Issue
            *       Lack of precision due to particulate loss due to filter handling and measurement practices.
            *       Lack of methods to control semi-volatile loss penalizes cleaner units.

   States' Recommendations
            *       Require that filters be pulled every 60 minutes.  These filters should be measured and reported independently for all devices tested.
            *       Require that filters weight measures for all devices be reported 12 hr, 24 hr, 48 hr and equilibration.
            *       Move to micro-balance, as needed, if filter weights become low.

Efficiency Testing
   Clarify type of testing expected
            *       Overall
            *       Combustion
            *       Delivered
            *       Tighten language and specifications for efficiency testing to ensure consistent measurement of delivered efficiency.

Compliance and Enforcement Issues
      *       Third party certification  -  States support independent third party testing and test review, but are concerned about the independence of companies hired directly by the manufacturers.
            o          EPA noted that they will investigate developing and using a CRADA to create a wall between manufacturers and test reviews.
      *       Develop a process to capture data from failed tests.
      *       Define appropriate holding time for units upon completion of testing.
            o          EPA and States agreed that tested units don't need to be held forever (maybe pulled off in a year); but, states want better documentation of the test settings.
      *       Preference for EPA to have stronger field presence.
      *       States and EPA discussed the opportunity for some portions of the rule to be delegated to states.

Existing Stoves
      *       Deteriorating units  -  How long after a unit is sold, should they keep working as normal?
      *       States suggested a service contract and audit every 2 years to check that everything is clean.
      *       An analogy was made to cars:
            o          Cars have a warranty from the manufacturer for a certain amount of time to cover anything that doesn't come out clean.  Suggested something similar could be done for wood stoves.
            o          EPA agreed that manufacturers shouldn't be off the hook if something goes wrong down the road, so it's not just on the dealer.
            o          Some manufacturers have argued that there is no connection between manufacturers and retailers after a unit is out; there needs to be a check for retailers.

Top Priorities for States and EPA
   * Lisa Rector, NESCAUM- Getting the three "bins" concept through.
   * Lisa Herschberger, Minnesota PCA- Need to be able to show states how big of a problem this is compared to other source categories; shorter filter times, get visible emissions standard in future.
   * Rachel Sakata, Oregon DEQ- Developing a rule for outdoor wood boilers; binning concept; pushing to go past Washington's standards.
   * Rod Tinnemore, Washington DOE- Binning process; Washington still has non-attainment areas; field use and test; need to clean up test methods so not to get bogus numbers.
   * Amanda Aldridge, EPA- Binning concept; tightening the test methods; need more education.
   * David Cole, EPA- Binning concept; sharing data to provide justification for what we are doing.
   * Chebryll Edwards, EPA- Getting the wood stove standard better than Washington's standard; get the binning process in the proposal and solicit public comments on it; methods not as important.
   * Mike Toney, EPA- Reducing the number of runs, and number of categories.
   * Gil Wood, EPA- Binning concept; cleaning up test methods; adding shorter filters.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 212 (Friday, November 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 51237]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23937]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP18-24-001.
    Applicants: Viking Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to RP18-24-000 Update Non-
Conforming Agreements--November 2017 to be effective 11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/24/17.
    Accession Number: 20171024-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-54-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Compliance filing Notice Regarding Non-Jurisdictional
Gathering Facilities (PEB-25 and PEB-824).
    Filed Date: 10/24/17.
    Accession Number: 20171024-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-55-000.
    Applicants: Big Sandy Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates Oct 2017
Cleanup Filing to be effective 12/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/24/17.
    Accession Number: 20171024-5003.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated October 26, 2017
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-23937 Filed 11-2-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P