[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 23, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37549-37551]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13404]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0238; Product Identifier 2018-SW-072-AD; Amendment
39-21144; AD 2020-12-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Helicopters Model EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters. This AD was
prompted by a report that a changed manufacturing process for the tail
rotor blades (TRB) was implemented, affecting the structural
characteristics of the blades and generating a new part number for
these blades. This AD requires re-identifying each affected TRB having
a certain part number and serial number and establishing a life limit
for the new part numbers. This AD also prohibits installation of any
affected TRB identified with the old part number on any helicopter. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 28, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 28,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. 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>. It is also available on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2020-0238.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0238; 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, 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: Kristi Bradley, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Helicopters
Model EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on March 11, 2020 (85 FR 14180). The NPRM was prompted
by a report that a changed manufacturing process for the TRB was
implemented, affecting the structural characteristics of the blades and
generating a new part number for these blades. The NPRM proposed to
require re-identifying each affected TRB having a certain part number
and serial number and establishing a life limit for the new part
numbers. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit installation of any
affected TRB identified with the old part number on any helicopter. The
FAA is issuing this AD to ensure the new part number (P/N) TRBs do not
exceed their life limit, which could lead to loss of the TRB and

subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation
Safety Agency) (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member
States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0182, dated
August 28, 2018 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for all Airbus Helicopters Model EC130B4 and EC130T2
helicopters. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2020-0238.

Comments

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

Conclusion

    The FAA 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. The FAA has 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 Helicopters has issued Alert Service Bulletin EC130-04A007,
Revision 0, dated July 18, 2018 (``ASB EC130-04A007''). This service
information describes procedures for re-identifying a TRB with P/N
350A333002.02 for certain serial numbers, as specified in ASB EC130-
04A007. 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.

Difference Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    EASA AD 2018-0182 specifies to replace TRBs having P/N
350A333002.05. However, this part number is not installed on in-service
helicopters and is not addressed in Airbus Helicopters ASB EC130-
04A007. Therefore, this AD does not require replacing TRBs having P/N
350A333002.05.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 253 helicopters of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85.............................         $0 \**\              $85      $21,505 \*\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the agency to provide cost estimates for the
  additional applicable maintenance instructions specified in this AD.
** The FAA has received no definitive data on the parts costs for required actions.

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.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2020-12-09 Airbus Helicopters: Amendment 39-21144; Docket No. FAA-
2020-0238; Product Identifier 2018-SW-072-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is July 28, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus Helicopters Model EC130B4 and
EC130T2 helicopters, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code 6410, Tail rotor
blade.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that a new manufacturing
process for the tail rotor blades (TRBs) has been implemented,
affecting the structural characteristics of the TRB and generating a
new part number (P/N) for these blades. It was determined that a new
life limit is needed for the new P/N TRBs. The FAA is issuing this
AD to ensure the new P/N TRBs do not exceed their life limit, which
could lead to loss of the TRB and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definition of an Affected Part for the Re-identification and
Validation of Rework/Repair/Modification

    An ``affected part'' is a TRB having P/N 350A333002.02 and a
serial number specified in Appendix 4.A. of Airbus Helicopters Alert
Service Bulletin EC130-04A007, Revision 0, dated July 18, 2018
(``ASB EC130-04A007'').

(h) Part Replacement (Life Limit Implementation)

    Before exceeding 10,000 hours time-in-service (TIS) since first
installation on a helicopter: Remove from service each TRB having P/
N 350A333002.04.

(i) Part Re-Identification and Validation of Rework/Repair/Modification

    (1) Within 1,200 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD:
Re-identify each affected part, in accordance with 3.B. of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Helicopters ASB EC130-04A007.
    (2) For each affected part which has been subject to rework,
repair, or modification before the re-identification, as required by
paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, within 6 months after the effective
date of this AD, contact the Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch,
FAA, for additional applicable maintenance instructions and, within
the compliance time identified in those instructions, accomplish
those instructions accordingly.

(j) Parts Installation Prohibition and Rework/Repair/Modification
Limitation

    (1) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
TRB having P/N 350A333002.02 and a serial number specified in
Appendix 4.A. of ASB EC130-04A007 on any helicopter.
    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may
accomplish any rework, repair, or modification of an affected part,
unless it has been determined that the rework, repair, or
modification is FAA-approved for P/N 350A333002.04.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve
AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Kristi Bradley, Aviation
Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards
Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone
817-222-5485; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, notify your
principal inspector or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of
the local flight standards district office or certificate holding
district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this
AD through an AMOC.

(l) Related Information

    (1) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD
2018-0182, dated August 28, 2018. This EASA AD may be found in the
AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0238.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Kristi Bradley,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft
Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin EC130-04A007,
Revision 0, dated July 18, 2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html.
    (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>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on June 4, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-13404 Filed 6-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 81 (Monday, April 27, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23264-23266]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08393]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0217]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Great Western Tube Float; Colorado
River, Parker, AZ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to change the location of the
special local regulation for the annual Great Western Tube Float, which
is held on the navigable waters of the Colorado River in Parker, AZ.
The change of the location for the special local regulation is
necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters
during the event. This action will restrict vessel traffic in certain
waters of the Colorado River, from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. one Saturday in
June, from Buckskin Mountain State Park to La Paz County Park. We
invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 12, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0217 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Briana Biagas, Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard; 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, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Great Western Tube Float is an annual recurring event listed in
Table 1, Item 9 of 33 CFR 100.1102, Annual Marine Events on the
Colorado River, between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, Arizona) and Headgate
Dam (Parker, Arizona). Special local regulations exist for the marine
event to allow for special use of the Colorado River, Parker, AZ for
this event.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to update the location for the
Great Western Tube Float which will provide effective control over the
marine event and insure safety of life in the regatta or marine parade
area. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in
46 U.S.C. 70041.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Great Western Tube Float is an annual event normally held on a
Saturday in June on the waters of the Colorado River, Parker, AZ.
    33 CFR 100.1102 lists the annual marine events and special local
regulations on the Colorado River, between Davis Dam (Bullhead City,
Arizona) and Headgate Dam (Parker, Arizona). The enforcement date and
regulated location for this marine event are listed in Table 1, Item 9
of Section 100.1102.
    The location listed in the Table indicates that the marine event
will occur on the navigable waters of the Colorado River from La Paz
County Park to the BlueWater Resort and Casino, immediately before the
Headgate Dam. However, this rule will change the location to the
navigable waters of the Colorado River from Buckskin Mountain State
Park to La Paz County Park, to reflect the actual location of this
year's event. This change is needed to accommodate the sponsor's event
plan and ensure that adequate regulations are in place to protect the
safety of vessels and individuals that may be present in the regulated
area. No other portion of Table 1 of Section 100.1102 or other
provisions in Section 100.1102 would be affected by this regulation.
    The special local regulations are necessary to provide for the
safety of the crew, spectators, participants, and other vessels and
users of the Colorado River waterway. Persons and vessels will continue
to be prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding
within this regulated waterway during the enforcement period unless
authorized by the COTP, or his designated representative. Additionally,
movement of all vessels within the regulated area and entry of all
vessels into the regulated area will be restricted. Before the
effective period, the Coast Guard will publish information on the event
in the weekly LNM. The proposed regulatory text appears at the end of
this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 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 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the special local regulation.
This event takes place annually on one Saturday in June and will utlize
only a small portion of the Colorado River during the event. This event
is already included in our regulations, the only change is to the
location on the river where the event would take place. The Coast Guard
will publish a local notice to mariners in the weeks before the event
that details the vessel restrictions of the regulated area.

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
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    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 proposed 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 call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would 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 proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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 proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the
establishment of marine event special local regulations on the
navigable waters of the Colorado River. Normally such actions are
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating
the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email 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.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal

eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email
the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document for alternate instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

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

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. In Sec.  100.1102, in Table 1 to Sec.  100.1102, amend item ``9'' to
read as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       9. Great Western Tube Float
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor...........................  City of Parker, AZ.
Event Description.................  River float.
Date..............................  One Saturday in June.
Location..........................  Parker, AZ.
Regulated Area....................  The navigable waters of the Colorado
                                     River from Buckskin Mountain State
                                     Park to La Paz County Park.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: April 15, 2020.
T.J. Barelli,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2020-08393 Filed 4-24-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75530-75532]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30318]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63382; File No. SR-NYSE-2010-73]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by New York Stock Exchange LLC
Amending NYSE Rule 5190 To Correspond With Rule Changes Filed by the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.

November 29, 2010.
    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 November 19, 2010, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
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 Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a
``non-controversial'' rule change under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act,\4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\5\ 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 5190 to correspond with
rule changes filed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') and approved by the Commission. The text of the proposed
rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public
Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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 the proposed rule changes is to amend NYSE Rule 5190
(Notification Requirements for Offering Participants) to correspond
with rule changes filed by FINRA and approved by the Commission.
    Background:
    On July 30, 2007, FINRA's predecessor, the National Association of
Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD''), and NYSE Regulation, Inc.
(``NYSER'') consolidated their member firm regulation operations into a
combined organization, FINRA. Pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), NYSE, NYSER
and FINRA entered into an agreement (the ``Agreement'') to reduce
regulatory duplication for their members by allocating to FINRA certain
regulatory responsibilities for certain NYSE rules and rule
interpretations (``FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules'').

NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'') became a party to the Agreement effective
December 15, 2008.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 56148 (July 26,
2007); 72 FR 42146 (Aug. 1, 2007) (order approving the Agreement),
56147 (July 26, 2007); 72 FR 42166 (Aug. 1, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-054)
(order approving the incorporation of certain NYSE Rules as ``Common
Rules''), and 60409 (July 30, 2009); 74 FR 39353 (Aug. 6, 2009)
(order approving the amended and restated Agreement, adding NYSE
Amex LLC as a party). Paragraph 2(b) of the Agreement sets forth
procedures regarding proposed changes by FINRA, NYSE, or NYSE Amex
to the substance of any of the Common Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of its effort to reduce regulatory duplication and relieve
firms that are members of FINRA, NYSE, and NYSE Amex of conflicting or
unnecessary regulatory burdens, FINRA is now engaged in the process of
reviewing and amending the NASD and FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules in
order to create a consolidated FINRA rulebook.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ FINRA's rulebook currently has three sets of rules: (1) NASD
Rules, (2) FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules, and (3) consolidated FINRA
Rules. The FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules apply only to those members
of FINRA that are also members of the NYSE (``Dual Members''), while
the consolidated FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA members. For more
information about the FINRA rulebook consolidation process, see
FINRA Information Notice, March 12, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Conforming Amendments to NYSE Rules:
    FINRA recently amended FINRA Rule 5190 to amend the notice
requirements applicable to distributions of securities that are
considered ``actively traded'' and thus are not subject to a restricted
period under Rule 101 of Regulation M.\8\ As approved, the substance of
the information that must be provided in the notice did not change,
only the timing of the notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62970 (Sep. 22,
2010); 75 FR 59771 (Sep. 28, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange previously adopted NYSE Rule 5190 to harmonize the
notification requirements for offering participants with FINRA Rule
5190.\9\ In order to harmonize the NYSE Rules with the approved FINRA
Rules, the Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 5190 to conform to the
recently approved amendments to FINRA Rule 5190.\10\ Accordingly, the
Exchange similarly proposes to amend NYSE Rule 5190(d) to provide that
member organizations will be required to provide a single notice under
subparagraphs (1) and (2) of Rule 5190(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59965 (May 21,
2009); 74 FR 25783 (May 29, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-25).
    \10\ NYSE Amex has submitted a companion rule filing amending
its rules in accordance with FINRA's rule changes. See SR-NYSEAmex-
2010-106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and further the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that
they are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes support the
objectives of the Act by providing greater harmonization among NYSE
Rules, NYSE Amex Equities Rules, and FINRA Rules (including Common
Rules) of similar purpose, resulting in less burdensome and more
efficient regulatory compliance for Dual Members. To the extent the
Exchange has proposed changes that differ from the FINRA version of the
Rules, such changes are technical in nature and do not change the
substance of the proposed NYSE Rules.

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

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

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

    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 \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\16\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission notes that
the proposed rule change would bring NYSE Rule 5190 into harmony with
FINRA Rule 5190. For this reason, the Commission believes that waiving
the 30-day operative delay \17\ is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. Therefore, the Commission designates
the proposal operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within the 60-day period beginning on the date of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2010-73 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-NYSE-2010-73. 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 the filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSE-2010-73 and should be submitted on or before
December 27, 2010.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30318 Filed 12-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 85 (Friday, May 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25139-25141]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10010]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2013-0316]

Outer Continental Shelf Units--Fire and Explosion Analyses

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of recommended interim voluntary guidelines.

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

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing response to the explosion, fire and
sinking of the mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) DEEPWATER HORIZON
in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, the Coast Guard is providing
recommended interim voluntary guidelines concerning fire and explosion
analyses for MODUs and manned fixed and floating offshore facilities
engaged in activities on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

DATES: The recommended voluntary guidelines in this notice are
effective May 2, 2014.
    Documents mentioned as being available in the docket are part of
docket USCG-2013-0316 and are available for inspection or copying at
the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2013-0316 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email LCDR John H. Miller, U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Design
and Engineering Standards, Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division (CG-ENG-
4), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Background

    The ``Report of Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding
the Explosion, Fire, Sinking and Loss of Eleven Crew Members Aboard the
Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) DEEPWATER HORIZON in the Gulf of
Mexico, April 20-22, 2010,'' (hereinafter referred to as ``Report''),
and related Commandant's Final Action Memo, dated September 9, 2011,
contain a number of recommendations for OCS safety improvements that
are presently being evaluated for further regulatory action. (These
documents may be found in the docket for this action, as indicated
under ADDRESSES).
    Recommendations 1D, 1E, 2B, 2C, 2E, and 3A in the Report urged the
Coast Guard to evaluate the need for fire and explosion risk analyses
to ensure an adequate level of protection is provided for accommodation
spaces, escape paths, embarkation stations, and structures housing
vital safety equipment from drill floor and production area events. The
Report highlighted the following considerations as areas not
specifically addressed by current regulations:
     Minimum values are needed for explosion design loads for
use in calculating the required blast resistance of structures;
     Explosion risk analysis of the design and layout of each
facility should be performed to identify high risk situations;
     H-60 rated fire boundaries between the drilling area and
adjacent accommodation spaces and spaces housing vital safety equipment
may be necessary dependent on the arrangement of the facility;
     Uniform guidelines for performing engineering evaluations
to ensure adequate protection of bulkheads and decks separating
hazardous areas from adjacent structures and escape routes for likely
drill floor fire scenarios are necessary;
     Performance-based fire risk analysis should be used to
supplement the prescriptive requirements in the MODU Code; such
analysis should use defined heat flux loads to calculate necessary
levels of protection for structures, equipment, and vital systems that
could be affected by fires on the drill floor;
     Maximum allowable radiant heat exposure limits for
personnel at the muster stations and lifesaving appliance launching
stations in anticipated evacuation scenarios should be implemented.
    To implement these recommendations, a future Coast Guard rulemaking
will address fire and explosion risk analyses for MODUs and manned
fixed and floating offshore facilities engaged in OCS activities.
Comments will be invited in connection with that rulemaking.
    Currently, there is no requirement in the current OCS regulations,
in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), that requires a
fire and explosion analysis that would implement the recommendations
from the Report. Furthermore, while Section 9 of the 2009 IMO MODU Code
contains some recommendations on the parameters of fire and explosion
risk analysis, we believe that these recommendations are not
sufficiently specific to adequately and consistently address these
recommendations from the Report on their own.
    We believe that the recommendations from the 2009 IMO MODU Code are
insufficiently specific for several reasons. Section 9.3.1 of the 2009
MODU Code provides, ``In general, accommodation spaces, service spaces
and control stations should not be located adjacent to hazardous areas.
However, where this is not practicable, an engineering evaluation
should be performed to ensure that the level of fire protection and
blast resistance of the bulkheads and decks separating these spaces
from the hazardous areas are adequate for the likely hazard.'' This
requirement is not specific enough to consistently ensure the
protection of safety-critical spaces and elements aboard MODUs and
manned fixed and floating offshore facilities engaged in OCS
activities, and needs to be supported by guidance to better define what
the ``engineering evaluation'' should include and what performance
criteria should be met to ensure ``adequate protection'' is provided.
Safety-critical spaces and elements refers to any accommodation or work
area, equipment, system, device, or material, the failure, destruction,
or release of which could directly or indirectly endanger the
survivability of the facility and the personnel onboard. These safety-
critical spaces and

elements can include, but not be limited to, control stations,
accommodation areas, vital safety equipment, escape routes and survival
craft launching areas, and other equipment with escalation potential
(e.g., fuel storage). Survivability refers to the event threshold
determined by the company for the purposes of fire and explosion. This
normally includes the specification of a sufficient period of time to
maintain the habitability of safety-critical spaces and escape routes,
temporary refuge, and muster areas to allow for emergency response and
boarding of survival craft and subsequent evacuation of the facility.
    Additionally, Section 9.4.5 of the 2009 MODU Code also requires
that, ``Consideration should be given by the Administration to the
siting of superstructures and deckhouses such that in the event of fire
at the drill floor at least one escape route to the embarkation
position and survival craft is protected against radiation effects of
that fire as far as practicable.'' This requirement is not specific
enough to consistently ensure the protection of escape routes aboard
MODUs and manned fixed and floating offshore facilities engaged in OCS
activities, and needs to be supported by guidance to better define what
level of ``radiation effects'' to personnel and safety equipment is
acceptable.
    The Coast Guard believes the fire and explosion analysis guidelines
set forth below are needed to uniformly implement the recommendations
in paragraphs 9.3.1 and 9.4.5 of 2009 MODU Code, and address
recommendations 1D, 1E, 2B, 2C, 2E, and 3A of the Report. It is the
Coast Guard's belief that following these recommendations would yield
significant safety improvements. These guidelines were developed based
on industry standards, technical expert advice, and fire protection
engineering references. These guidelines are intended for use in the
design phase of new facility construction; however, they may be useful
in assessing and increasing the safety of existing facilities.

Interim Voluntary Guidance

(a) Introduction

    As an interim measure pending a Coast Guard future rulemaking,
owners/operators of MODUs and manned fixed and floating offshore
facilities operating on the U.S. OCS are urged to consider voluntary
compliance with the guidelines laid out below, to the extent
appropriate and practicable.
    The intent of the recommendations set forth below is to provide a
consistent approach for adequate protection of personnel and safety-
critical spaces and elements located on MODUS and manned fixed and
floating offshore facilities against potential fire and explosion
events following a catastrophic failure such as loss of well control.
This approach should consider all facility operating modes including
startup, maintenance periods, crew turnover, etc.

(b) Recommendations

(1) Engineering Evaluation
    The engineering evaluation of fire and blast loads in the design of
offshore facilities should follow an established and widely accepted
approach, normally based on the fire and explosion risk of hydrocarbon
fuel sources. An engineering evaluation should identify hazards and the
potential damage of major accident events. This evaluation should
consist of a methodology that may include the following: hazard
identification, consequence evaluation, adequacy of control and
mitigation measures, and final risk assessment. The evaluation should
be completed by a Registered Professional Fire Protection Engineer with
experience in fire and explosion analysis, or by a recognized class
society (under 46 CFR part 8) with similar equivalent experience.
    This evaluation should include establishment of accepted
performance criteria to demonstrate that appropriate mitigating
measures have been implemented to ensure survivability of the facility
and personnel.
    The Coast Guard recommends the use of American Petroleum Institute
(API) Recommended Practice (RP) 2FB for conducting an engineering
evaluation.
    We note that there are other standards available that can be used
for the engineering evaluation. We chose API RP 2FB because it contains
thorough coverage of the elements which are important to an engineering
evaluation and because the Coast Guard actively participates in the API
committee process. We do note that there are alternative approaches
that have been widely accepted by the oil and gas industry meeting the
intent of this recommendation.
(2) Explosion Protection
    Maximum allowable values for explosion design loads should be
determined based on accepted industry standards and used to calculate
the required blast resistance of structures for each particular
arrangement. Explosion design load means a nominal, peak overpressure
that has been defined in industry standards based on a limited data set
for a number of platform concept types (nominal values are determined
from acquired experience or physical conditions). In cases where
vulnerabilities are noted, facility arrangements should be modified or
additional protective measures provided.
    We recommend use of the unmodified nominal explosion overpressures
by facility type and load modifiers listed in API RP 2FB, Tables
C.6.3.1-1 and C.6.3.2-1, where appropriate. As described in the guide,
load modifiers should be used to account for the higher or lower
pressures that may be associated with specific facility arrangements or
operations.
    We do note that there are alternative explosion design loads that
have been widely accepted by the oil and gas industry meeting the
intent of this recommendation.
(3) Fire Protection
    The radiant heat flux produced by particular hazards should be
prescribed and calculations completed to assess the effects on safety
critical spaces and elements. Radiant heat flux means the rate of heat
transfer per unit area perpendicular to the direction of heat flow;
normally expressed in kilowatts per meters squared (kW/m\2\) or British
Thermal Units per second foot squared (Btu/(s*ft\2\)). Radiant heat
flux is a measure of the potential for injury, damage or fire spread
(e.g., most common combustibles ignite when exposed to a radiant heat
flux of 0.9-1.8 Btu/(s*ft\2\) or 10-20 kW/m\2\).
    The radiant heat flux from typical drill floor fire sources should
be approximated from the following:
    (i) As specified in API RP 2FB, jet fires may give rise to radiant
heat flux levels on the order of 300 KW/m\2\ in open conditions and up
to 400 KW/m\2\ in confined areas. Jet fire refers to a high-pressure
release of any flammable fluid or gases in a solution that forms a jet
which is ignited, and in which the flame burns back against the flow
towards the release point;
    (ii) As specified in API RP 2FB, pool fires may give rise to lower
radiant heat flux levels on the order of 100-160 KW/m\2\. Pool fire
refers to a body of fuel that is confined by physical boundaries (e.g.,
obstructions on the floor will limit a fuel release to a smaller area
than the potential unconfined spill area).
    Where the safety-critical spaces and elements are exposed to a
radiant heat flux up to 100 KW/m\2\, a passive structural fire
protection equivalent

rating of A-60 should generally be considered sufficient for the
surface facing the source of the radiant heat flux. For radiant heat
flux levels 100 KW/m\2\ and above, H-60 rated protection should be
considered as a minimum. In either case, the protection should continue
on the adjacent sides of such structures for a minimum distance of 10
feet (3 meters) from the surface facing the source of the radiant heat
flux (SOLAS II-2/<IP_ADDRESS>.5). This overlapping of protection on adjacent
areas is necessary to prevent the radiant heat from ``wrapping around''
to expose an inadequately protected area.
    The Coast Guard recommends use of the following references for
calculating the radiant heat flux at a target from a fire source (i.e.,
pool or jet fire).
    (i) The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, Fourth
Edition (Section 3, Chapter 10);
    (iii) API Recommended Practice 2FB.
    We do note that there are alternative baseline radiant heat flux
levels and calculations that have been recognized by the oil and gas
industry meeting the intent of this recommendation.
(4) Heat Exposure
    The maximum radiant heat exposure to personnel should be evaluated
at the assembly/muster stations and survival craft launching stations
as well as along the normal escape routes from the accommodation and
service areas to those areas.
    The maximum allowable radiant heat flux exposure for personnel at
the muster stations and survival craft launching stations should be low
enough to prevent injury when exposed for the period of time needed to
embark and launch the survival craft (normally around 2.5 KW/m\2\ for
approximately thirty minutes on bare skin).
    The Coast Guard recommends use of the following references for
calculating the radiant heat flux exposure to a target and the limits
on personnel exposure:
    (i) The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, Fourth
Edition (Section 2, Chapter 6; Section 3, Chapter 10);
    (ii) Fire Protection Handbook, Twentieth Edition (Section 6,
Chapter 2);
    (iii) API Recommended Practice 2FB.
    We do note that there are alternative methods for calculating
radiant heat flux exposure to personnel and exposure limits which meet
the intent of this recommendation.
(5) Mitigation
    Where the explosion design load, radiant heat flux and radiant heat
exposure values calculated for the facility exceed the recommended
performance standard of the equipment in place, mitigation measures,
such as venting, increased structural strength of blast-walls,
bulkheads and decks, passive fire protection, re-arrangement and
shifting of structures, or other viable and analyzed mitigation
measures should be incorporated.

Authority; Disclaimer

    This document is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 43
U.S.C. 1331, et seq., and 33 CFR 1.05-1. The guidance contained in this
notice is not a substitute for applicable legal requirements or current
Coast Guard and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
regulations, nor is it itself a regulation. It is not intended to nor
does it impose legally binding requirements on any party. It represents
the Coast Guard's current thinking on this topic and may assist
industry, mariners, the general public, and the Coast Guard, as well as
other Federal and State regulators, in instituting lessons learned from
the Report.

    Dated: April 28, 2014.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2014-10010 Filed 5-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 27266]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12312]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-0001]

Request for Nominations of Voting Members on a Public Advisory
Committee; National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting
nominations for voting members to serve on the National Mammography
Quality Assurance Advisory Committee in the Center for Devices and
Radiological Health. FDA seeks to include the views of women and men,
members of all racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and
without disabilities on its advisory committees and, therefore,
encourages nominations of appropriately qualified candidates from these
groups.

DATES: Nominations received on or before August 14, 2017, will be given
first consideration for membership on the National Mammography Quality
Assurance Advisory Committee. Nominations received after August 14,
2017, will be considered for nomination to the committee as later
vacancies occur.

ADDRESSES: All nominations for membership should be submitted
electronically by logging into the FDA Advisory Nomination Portal:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/FACTRSPortal/FACTRS/index.cfm or
by mail to Advisory Committee Oversight and Management Staff, Food and
Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5103,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Information about becoming a member on an
FDA advisory committee can also be obtained by visiting FDA's Web site
at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regarding all nomination questions for
membership: Sara Anderson, Center for Devices and Radiological Health,
Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm.
G616, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is requesting nominations for voting
members on the National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory
Committee.

I. General Description of the Committee Duties

    The National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee
advises the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner) or
designee on: (1) Developing appropriate quality standards and
regulations for mammography facilities; (2) developing appropriate
standards and regulations for bodies accrediting mammography facilities
under this program; (3) developing regulations with respect to
sanctions; (4) developing procedures for monitoring compliance with
standards; (5) establishing a mechanism to investigate consumer
complaints; (6) reporting new developments concerning breast imaging
that should be considered in the oversight of mammography facilities;
(7) determining whether there exists a shortage of mammography
facilities in rural and health professional shortage areas and
determining the effects of personnel on access to the services of such
facilities in such areas; (8) determining whether there will exist a
sufficient number of medical physicists after October 1, 1999; and (9)
determining the costs and benefits of compliance with these
requirements.

II. Criteria for Voting Members

    The committee consists of a core of 15 members, including the
Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner or
designee from among physicians, practitioners, and other health
professionals, whose clinical practice, research specialization, or
professional expertise includes a significant focus on mammography.
Almost all non-Federal members of this committee serve as Special
Government Employees. Members will be invited to serve for terms of up
to 4 years.

III. Nomination Procedures

    Any interested person may nominate one or more qualified persons
for membership on the advisory committee. Self-nominations are also
accepted. Nominations must include a current, complete resume or
curriculum vitae for each nominee, including current business address
and/or home address, telephone number, and email address if available.
Nominations must specify the advisory committee for which the nominee
is recommended. Nominations must also acknowledge that the nominee is
aware of the nomination unless self-nominated. FDA will ask potential
candidates to provide detailed information concerning such matters
related to financial holdings, employment, and research grants and/or
contracts to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflict of
interest.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

    Dated: June 9, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-12312 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


			UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

						REGION III

					      1650 Arch Street

				   Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

 ADVANCE \x 0

DATE:	 January 5, 2011

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document

Approval of Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions

to Allegheny County Health Department Regulations incorporating Modeling
Requirements for Major Sources Locating In or Impacting A Nonattainment
Area

 ADVANCE \x 0 FROM:         	Paul T. Wentworth, P.E.

Office of Permits and Air Toxics (3AP10)

 ADVANCE \x 0 TO:               	Kathleen Cox, Chief

                      	Office of Permits and Air Toxics (3AP10)

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT

EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0881

APPROVAL

REVISIONS TO ALLEGHENY COUNTY RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR MAJOR SOURCES
LOCATING IN OR IMPACTING A NONATTAINMENT AREA

I.	 	BACKGROUND

	On November 16, 2006, The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) submitted a revision to Allegheny County’s portion
of the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) consisting of
changes to Allegheny County's Article XXI Air Pollution Control Rules
and Regulations.  The revision incorporates requirements of 40 CFR
51.160(f), “Modeling Requirements” into new subsection 2102.06(g),
“Requirements for Modeling” under Section 2102.06, “Major Sources
Locating in or Impacting a Non-attainment Area”.

40 CFR Part 51 Subpart I, “Review of New Sources and Modifications”
requires that each SIP contain legally enforceable procedures that
enable the State or local agency to determine whether the construction
or modification of a facility, building or structure or installation, or
combination of these will result in a violation of applicable portions
of the control strategy; or interference with attainment or maintenance
of a national standard in the state in which the proposed source (or
modification) is located or in a neighboring State.  40 CFR 51.160(f)
states that these procedures must discuss the air quality data and the
dispersion or other air quality modeling used to meet the requirements
of this subpart.  It further stipulates that all applications of air
quality modeling involved in this subpart shall be based on the
applicable models, data bases, and other requirements specified in
appendix W of this part,  Federal Guideline on Air Quality Models
(Guideline). The Guideline provides model users with a common basis for
estimating pollution concentrations, assessing control strategies and
specifying emission limits.  The modeling requirements under 40 CFR
51.160 (f)(2) specify that where an air quality model specified in
appendix W of this part is inappropriate, the model may be modified or
another model substituted on a case-by-case basis or, where appropriate,
on a generic basis for a specific State program provided that written
approval is obtained from the Administrator.  Use of a modified or
substituted model must be subject to notice and opportunity for public
comment under procedures set forth in 40 CFR 51.102.  The modeling
requirements of 40 CFR 51.160 (f)(2) must be incorporated as a new
Subsection, 2102.06(g), under Allegheny County’s Regulation to make
Allegheny’s regulation 2102.06 consistent with 40 CFR 51 Subpart I.

II.	SUMMARY OF ACTION

	EPA is approving, via direct final rulemaking action, amendments to
Allegheny County’s Regulations, section 2102.06 entitled
“Requirements for Modeling”, submitted on November 16, 2006.  These
amendments consist of a new subsection, 2102.06(g), ‘‘Major Sources
Locating in or Impacting a Nonattainment Area’’.  PADEP is
incorporating these amendments into the Pennsylvania SIP. This approval
action will revise the previously approved versions of these rules
approved on November 14, 2002 (67 FR 38935) into the Pennsylvania SIP.

III.	PROGRAM REVIEW

	This section outlines the changes the State of Pennsylvania has made to
the existing SIP for the purposes of updating their regulations so that
they are consistent with the Federal rules as of the CFR edition dated
July 1, 2008.  There were no public comments made regarding the proposed
adoption of the changes to Article XXI Section 2102.06 at the public
hearing held on January 7, 2005.

Section 2102.06, “Major Sources Locating in or Impacting a
Nonattainment Area

Section	Status	Description

Regulation

2102.06	Added Subsection 2102.06(g) to Regulation	Updated ACHD
Regulation to include modeling requirements to be consistent with
Federal Requirements

In 40 CFR 51 Subpart I

IV.	CONCLUSION

EPA concludes that the result of this SIP revision enables Allegheny
County’s program  to meet all of the program element requirements
contained in 40 CFR 51 Subpart I.

V.	RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION

	I recommend that the amended Allegheny County regulation 2102.06 be
approved as revisions to strengthen the current Pennsylvania State
Implementation Plan.

 PAGE

 PAGE   3