[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 42 (Friday, March 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 12943]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04506]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-FRL-10020-83-OP]

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; Notification of
Virtual Public Meetings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notification for a series of public meetings.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby provides notice that
the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) will meet
on the dates and times described below. All meetings are open to the
public. Members of the public are encouraged to provide comments
relevant to the specific issues being considered by the NEJAC. For
additional information about registering to attend the meeting or to
provide public comment, please see ``REGISTRATION'' under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. Due to the limit of 500 participants, attendance will be
on a first-come, first served basis. Registration is required.

DATES: The NEJAC will hold a series of virtual public meetings on
Wednesday, March 24, 2021, Thursday, May 6, 2021, and Thursday, June
17, 2021, from approximately 1:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight
Time each day. The meeting discussions will focus on several topics
including, but not limited to, EPA administration transitions
priorities, and discussions and deliberations of a charge related to
the reuse and revitalization of Superfund and other contaminated sites.
A public comment period relevant to the specific issues will be
considered by the NEJAC at each meeting (see SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION). Members of the public who wish to participate during the
public comment period must--register by 11:59 p.m., Eastern Daylight
Time, one (1) week prior to each meeting date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen L. Martin, NEJAC Designated
Federal Officer, U.S. EPA; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone: (202) 564-
0203. Additional information about the NEJAC is available at https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/national-environmental-justice-advisory-council.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Charter of the NEJAC states that the
advisory committee ``will provide independent advice and
recommendations to the Administrator about broad, crosscutting issues
related to environmental justice. The NEJAC's efforts will include
evaluation of a broad range of strategic, scientific, technological,
regulatory, community engagement and economic issues related to
environmental justice.''
    Registration: Individual registration is required for each virtual
public meeting. Information on how to register is located at https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/national-environmental-justice-advisory-council-meetings. Registration for the meetings and to speak
for public comment will close at 11:59 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, one
(1) week prior to meeting date. When registering, please provide your
name, organization, city and state, and email address for follow up.
Please also indicate whether you would like to provide public comment
during the meeting, and whether you are submitting written comments at
time of registration.

A. Public Comment

    Individuals or groups making remarks during the public comment
period will be limited to three (3) minutes. To accommodate the number
of people who want to address the NEJAC, only one representative from
each community, organization, or group will be allowed to speak.
Written comments can also be submitted for the record. The suggested
format for individuals providing public comments is as follows: name of
speaker; name of organization/community; city and state; and email
address; brief description of the concern, and what you want the NEJAC
to advise EPA to do. Written comments received by the registration
deadline, will be included in the materials distributed to the NEJAC
prior to the meeting. Written comments received after that time will be
provided to the NEJAC as time allows. All written comments should be
sent to Karen L. Martin, EPA, via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. Information About Services for Individuals With Disabilities or
Requiring English language Translation Assistance

    For information about access or services for individuals requiring
assistance, please contact Karen L. Martin, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request special accommodations for a
disability or other assistance, please submit your request at least
fourteen (14) working days prior to the meeting, to give EPA sufficient
time to process your request. All requests should be sent to the
address, email, or phone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

Matthew Tejada,
Director for the Office of Environmental Justice.
[FR Doc. 2021-04506 Filed 3-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78430-78431]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30403]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9920-84-OA]

Notification of a Joint Public Teleconference of the Chartered
Science Advisory Board and the Board of Scientific Counselors and a
Public Teleconference of the Chartered Science Advisory Board

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory
Board (SAB) Staff Office announces two public teleconferences: (1) A
joint teleconference of the Chartered SAB and Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) to discuss a draft report providing advice on
implementation of Office of Research and Development's (ORD's)
strategic directions for research; and (2) a teleconference of the
Chartered SAB to discuss information provided in the agency's Fall 2013
and Spring 2014 regulatory agenda and to review draft SAB reports on
the EPA's draft web-based Report on the Environment and the EPA's draft
Environmental Justice Technical Guidance.

DATES: The public teleconference for the Chartered SAB and the BOSC
will be held on Tuesday, January 13, 2015, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
(Eastern Time) and the public teleconference for the Chartered SAB will
be held on Friday, January 23, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
(Eastern Time).

ADDRESSES: The public teleconferences will be conducted by telephone
only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing to
obtain information concerning the public teleconferences may contact
Dr. Angela Nugent, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science
Advisory Board Staff Office (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; by
telephone/voice mail at<PHONE_NUMBER> or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
General information about the SAB as well as any updates concerning the
teleconferences announced in this notice may be found on the EPA Web
site at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SAB was established pursuant to the
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization
Act (ERDDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent
scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical
basis for Agency positions and regulations. The BOSC was established by
the EPA to provide advice, information, and recommendations regarding
the ORD research program. The SAB and BOSC are federal advisory
committees chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5
U.S.C., App. 2. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given
that: (1) The Chartered SAB and Chartered BOSC will hold a joint
teleconference to discuss a draft report on future directions for ORD's
research programs and (2) the Chartered SAB will hold a public
teleconference for two purposes. The first purpose is to discuss
information provided in the agency's Fall 2013 and Spring 2014
regulatory agenda, specifically planned actions and their supporting
science. The second purpose is to review two draft SAB reports (on the
EPA's draft web-based Report on the Environment and the EPA's draft
Environmental Justice Technical Guidance). The SAB and BOSC will comply
with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office
procedural policies.
    Joint SAB-BOSC teleconference on future directions for ORD's
research programs. On January 13, 2015, the Chartered SAB and Chartered
BOSC will discuss a draft report entitled Strategic Research Planning
for 2016-2019: A Joint Report (11/20/14 Draft) of the SAB and ORD BOSC.
The draft report was developed as a result of deliberations at a joint
SAB-BOSC meeting on July 24-25, 2014. Information about this advisory
activity can be found on the Web at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/ORD%20Strat%20Dir%202016-2019?OpenDocument.
    Chartered SAB teleconference to discuss EPA planned actions and
review two draft SAB reports. On January 23, 2015, the chartered SAB
will hold a teleconference for two purposes. The first purpose is to
discuss information provided in the agency's Fall 2013 and Spring 2014
regulatory agenda, specifically planned actions and their supporting
science. The Chartered SAB will conclude discussions begun at an SAB
public teleconference on June 11, 2014 (79 FR 27604-27605) regarding
the Fall 2013 Unified (Regulatory) Agenda and Regulatory Plan.
Information about this advisory activity can be found on the Web at
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/SAB%20Fall%202013%20Agenda%20Disc?OpenDocument. The Chartered SAB will
also discuss recommendations regarding the Spring 2014 Unified
(Regulatory) Agenda and Regulatory Plan. Information about this
advisory activity can be found on the Web at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/SAB%20Spring%202014%20Agenda%20Disc?OpenDocument.
    The second purpose of the call on January 23, 2015, is for the SAB
to review two draft SAB reports. Quality review is a key function of
the chartered SAB. Draft reports prepared by SAB committees, panels, or
work groups must be reviewed and approved by the chartered SAB before
transmittal to the EPA Administrator. Consistent with FACA, the
chartered SAB makes a determination in a public meeting about each
draft report and determines whether the report is ready to be
transmitted to the EPA Administrator.
    The first Chartered SAB review will focus on a draft report on the
scientific and technical merit of the EPA's draft Web-based Report on
the Environment with particular attention to its adoption

of a sustainability framework and new sustainability indicators, as
well as the online format as a tool to communicate to scientists,
policy makers and public audiences. The SAB undertook this review at
the request of the EPA's Office of Research and Development.
Information about this advisory activity can be found on the Web at
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/ROE%202014?OpenDocument.
    The second Chartered SAB review will focus on an SAB draft report
reviewing the EPA's draft Environmental Justice Technical Guidance. The
EPA developed the guidance to assist agency staff on how to assess
disproportionate environmental and public health impacts of proposed
rules and actions on minority, low income and indigenous populations in
a variety of regulatory contexts. The EPA's Office of Policy requested
the SAB's assessment of the appropriateness and scientific soundness of
the technical guidance. Information about this advisory activity can be
found on the Web at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/EJ%20Technical%20Guidance?OpenDocument.
    Availability of Meeting Materials: The agendas and materials in
support of these teleconferences will be available on the EPA Web site
at http://www.epa.gov/sab in advance of the teleconferences.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a
different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices.
Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory
committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an
EPA program office.
    Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific
advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA. Members of the
public can submit comments for a federal advisory committee to consider
as it develops advice for EPA. Input from the public to the SAB will
have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical
information or analysis for SAB panels to consider or if it relates to
the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the
public wishing to provide comment should contact the Designated Federal
Officer as noted above.
    Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an
oral presentation at a teleconference will be limited to three minutes.
Each person making an oral statement should consider providing written
comments as well as their oral statement so that the points presented
orally can be expanded upon in writing. Interested parties should
contact Dr. Angela Nugent, DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at
the contact information noted above one week before each of the
teleconferences to be placed on the list of public speakers.
    Written Statements: Written statements should be supplied to the
DFO, preferably via email, at the contact information noted above one
week before each of the teleconferences so that the information may be
made available to the Board members for their consideration. It is the
SAB Staff Office general policy to post written comments on the Web
page for the advisory meeting or teleconference. Submitters are
requested to provide an unsigned version of each document because the
SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its Web
sites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal
contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted
to the SAB Web site. Copyrighted material will not be posted without
explicit permission of the copyright holder.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Angela Nugent at
(202) 564-2218 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a
disability, please contact Dr. Nugent preferably at least ten days
prior to the teleconference to give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.

    Dated: December 15, 2014.
Thomas H. Brennan,
Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2014-30403 Filed 12-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 165 (Monday, August 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 58630]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18623]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 31, 2023.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topics:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: August 24, 2023.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-18623 Filed 8-24-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 4, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 232)]
[Notices]
[Page 70433-70434]
[DOCID:fr04de06-85]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. NRTL3-92]

TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc.; Expansion of Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's final decision expanding the recognition of TUV
Rheinland of North America, Inc., (TUV) as a Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory under 29 CFR 1910.7.

DATES: The expansion of recognition becomes effective on December 4,
2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MaryAnn Garrahan, Director, Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-3653, Washington, DC 20210,
or phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice of Final Decision

    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) hereby
gives notice of the expansion of recognition of TUV Rheinland of North
America, Inc., (TUV) as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory
(NRTL). TUV's expansion covers the use of additional test standards.
OSHA's current scope of recognition for TUV may be found in the
following informational Web page: http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/tuv.html
.

    OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization has met
the legal requirements in Section 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal
Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the
organization can perform independent safety testing and certification
of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is
not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of
recognition, employers may use products ``properly certified'' \1\ by
the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Properly certified means, in part, that the product is
labeled or marked with the NRTL's ``registered'' certification mark
(i.e., the mark the NRTL uses for its NRTL work) and that the
product certification falls within the scope of recognition of the
NRTL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial
recognition or for expansion or renewal of this recognition following
requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires
that the Agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides its preliminary finding and, in the second
notice, the Agency provides its final decision on the application.
These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or
modifications of that scope. We maintain an informational Web page that
details the scope of recognition for each NRTL. These pages can be
accessed from our Web site at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html
.

    TUV submitted an application, dated December 20, 2004, (see Exhibit
32-1) to expand its recognition to include five additional test
standards. The NRTL then amended the original application to request
four additional test standards (see Exhibit 32-2). The NRTL Program
staff determined that each of these standards is an ``appropriate test
standard'' within the meaning of 29 CFR 1910.7(c). However, one
standard was already included in TUV's scope. Therefore, OSHA is
approving eight test standards for the expansion. In connection with
this request, OSHA performed an on-site review of TUV's NRTL testing
facility. The assessor reviewed information pertinent to the request
and recommended expansion for the eight additional test standards (see
Exhibit 32-3).
    The preliminary notice announcing the expansion application was
published in the Federal Register on July 24, 2006 (71 FR 41841).
Comments were requested by August 8, 2006, but no comments were
received in response to this notice. OSHA is now proceeding with this
final notice to grant TUV's expansion application.
    The most recent application processed by OSHA for TUV also covered
an expansion of recognition, and the final notice granting this
expansion was published on June 20, 2003 (68 FR 37030).
    You may obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining
to the TUV application by contacting the Docket Office, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-2625, Washington, DC 20210. Docket No.
NRTL3-92 contains all materials in the record concerning TUV's
recognition.
    The current address of the TUV facility already recognized by OSHA
is: TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc., 12 Commerce Road, Newton, CT
06470.

Final Decision and Order

    NRTL Program staff has examined the application, the assessor's
recommendation, and other pertinent information. Based upon this
examination and the assessor's recommendation, OSHA finds that TUV has
met the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition,
subject to the limitation and conditions listed below. Pursuant to the
authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the recognition of TUV,
subject to the following limitation and conditions.

Limitation

    OSHA limits the expansion of TUV's recognition to testing and
certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the test
standards listed below. OSHA has determined that the standards meet the
requirements for an appropriate test standard, within the meaning of 29
CFR 1910.7(c).

UL 943...........................  Ground-Fault Circuit-Interrupters.
UL 991...........................  Tests for Safety-Related Controls
                                    Employing Solid-State Devices.
UL 1047..........................  Isolated Power Systems Equipment.
UL 1363..........................  Relocatable Power Taps.
UL 1662..........................  Electric Chain Saws.
UL 1664..........................  Immersion-Detection Circuit-
                                    Interrupters.
UL 1741..........................  Inverters, Converters, Controllers
                                    and Interconnection System Equipment
                                    for Use With Distributed Energy
                                    Resources.
UL 1863..........................  Communications-Circuit Accessories.

    The designations and titles of the above test standards were
current at the

time of the preparation of the notice of the preliminary finding.
    OSHA's recognition of TUV, or any NRTL, for a particular test
standard is limited to equipment or materials (i.e., products) for
which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification
before use in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also
covers any product(s) for which OSHA does not require such testing and
certification, an NRTL's scope of recognition does not include that
product(s).
    Many UL test standards also are approved as American National
Standards by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). However,
for convenience, we use the designation of the standards developing
organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under
our procedures, any NRTL recognized for an ANSI-approved test standard
may use either the latest proprietary version of the test standard or
the latest ANSI version of that standard. You may contact ANSI to find
out whether or not a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.

Conditions

    TUV must also abide by the following conditions of the recognition,
in addition to those already required by 29 CFR 1910.7:
    OSHA must be allowed access to TUV's facilities and records for
purposes of ascertaining continuing compliance with the terms of its
recognition and to investigate as OSHA deems necessary;
    If TUV has reason to doubt the efficacy of any test standard it is
using under this program, it must promptly inform the test standard
developing organization of this fact and provide that organization with
appropriate relevant information upon which its concerns are based;
    TUV must not engage in or permit others to engage in any
misrepresentation of the scope or conditions of its recognition. As
part of this condition, TUV agrees that it will allow no representation
that it is either a recognized or an accredited Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory (NRTL) without clearly indicating the specific
equipment or material to which this recognition is tied, or that its
recognition is limited to certain products;
    TUV must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change
of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major changes in
its operations as an NRTL, including details;
    TUV will meet all the terms of its recognition and will always
comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    TUV will continue to meet the requirements for recognition in all
areas where it has been recognized.

Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. E6-20406 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: July 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 134)]
[Notices]
[Page 39968-39969]
[DOCID:fr11jy08-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0372]

Global Harmonization Task Force, Study Groups 1 and 5; Proposed
and Final Documents; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of final and proposed documents that have been prepared by
Study Groups 1 and 5 of the Global Harmonization Task Force (GHTF),
respectively. These documents represent a harmonized proposal and
recommendation from the GHTF Study Groups that may be used by
governments developing and updating their regulatory requirements for
medical devices. These documents are intended to provide information
only and do not describe FDA's current regulatory requirements;
elements of these documents may not be consistent with current U.S.
regulatory requirements. In particular, FDA seeks comments on the
advantages and disadvantages of the approaches in the GHTF documents,
particularly where they are not consistent with current practices for
the manufacture of products in the United States.

DATES:  Submit written or electronic comments on these documents by
October 9, 2008. After October 9, 2008, written comments or electronic
comments may be submitted at any time to the contact persons listed in
this document.

ADDRESSES:  Submit written requests for single copies of these
documents to the Division of Small Manufacturers, International, and
Consumer Assistance (HFZ-220), Center for Devices and Radiological
Health, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., Rockville, MD
20850. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your request, or fax your request to<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access
to the documents.
    Submit written comments concerning these documents to the Division
of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments
to http://www.reguations.gov. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For information regarding Study Group 1:Ginette Y. Michaud,
Chairperson, GHTF, Study Group 1, Office of Device Evaluation,Center
for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-480), Food and Drug
Administration,9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For information regarding Study Group 5:Herbert P. Lerner, GHTF,
Study Group 5, Office of Device Evaluation, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health (HFZ-470), Food and Drug Administration, 9200
Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA has participated in a number of activities to promote the
international harmonization of regulatory requirements. In September
1992, a meeting was held in Nice, France by senior regulatory officials
to evaluate international harmonization. This meeting led to the
development of the organization now known as the GHTF to facilitate
harmonization. Subsequent meetings have been held in various locations
throughout the world.
    The GHTF is a voluntary group of representatives from national
medical device regulatory authorities and the regulated industry. Since
its inception, the GHTF has been comprised of representatives from five
founding members grouped into three geographical areas: Europe, Asia-
Pacific, and North America, each of which actively regulates medical
devices using its own unique regulatory framework.
    The objective of the GHTF is to encourage convergence at the global
level of regulatory systems of medical devices to facilitate trade
while preserving the right of participating members to address the
protection of public health by regulatory means considered most
suitable. One of the ways this objective is achieved is by identifying
and developing areas of international cooperation to facilitate
progressive reduction of technical and regulatory differences in
systems established to regulate medical devices. In an effort to
accomplish these objectives, the GHTF formed five study groups to draft
documents and carry on other activities designed to facilitate global
harmonization. This notice relates to documents that have been
developed by two of the Study Groups (1 and 5).
    Study Group 1 was initially tasked with the responsibility of
identifying differences between various regulatory systems. In 1995,
the group was asked to propose areas of potential harmonization for
premarket device regulations and possible guidelines that could help
lead to harmonization. As a result of its efforts, this group has
developed final document SG1/N44:2008. SG1/N44:2008 (final document)
entitled ``Role of Standards'' provides information on the use of
standards by a manufacturer when designing a medical device and,
subsequently, when demonstrating that the device conforms to relevant
essential safety and performance criteria.
    Study Group 5 was initially tasked with the responsibility of
developing documents on the content and format for clinical
investigation reports and on how to conduct and document a clinical
evaluation. As a result of its efforts, this group has developed
proposed document SG5(PD)/N37:2007. The proposed document SG5(PD)/
N37:2007 entitled ``Clinical Investigations'' introduces general
principles of clinical investigations of medical devices and general
principles when considering the need for a clinical investigation of a
medical device. This document primarily addresses the use of clinical
investigations to support a marketing authorization application.

II. Significance of Guidance

    These documents represent recommendations from the GHTF study
groups and do not describe regulatory requirements. FDA is making these
documents available so that industry and other members of the public
may express their views and opinions. In particular, FDA seeks comments
on the

advantages and disadvantages of the approaches in the GHTF documents,
particularly where they are not consistent with current practices for
the manufacture of products in the United States.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of these documents may do so
by using the Internet. The Center for Devices and Radiological Health
(CDRH) maintains an entry on the Internet for easy access to
information including text, graphics, and files that may be downloaded
to a personal computer with Internet access. Updated on a regular
basis, the CDRH home page includes device safety alerts, Federal
Register reprints, information on premarket submissions (including
lists of approved applications and manufacturers' addresses), small
manufacturer's assistance, information on video conferencing and
electronic submissions, Mammography Matters, and other device-oriented
information. Information on the GHTF may be accessed at http://
www.ghtf.org. The CDRH Web site may be accessed at http://www.fda.gov/
cdrh.

IV. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding these
documents. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper
copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one
paper copy. Comments are to be identified 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.
    Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets
Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management
System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management
system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only
through FDMS at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 2, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-15797 Filed 7-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6804-6806]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02214]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 3, 100, and 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0943]

Coast Guard Sector Virgina; Sector Name Conforming Amendment

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule makes non-substantive amendments to Coast Guard
regulations in association with a change in the Coast Guard's internal
organization. The amendment describes the name change of ``Sector
Hampton Roads Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone'' to
``Sector Virginia Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port
Zone.'' This rule will have no substantive effect on the regulated
public.

DATES: This rule is effective February 6, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0943 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 Commander Eric Matthies, Sector Logistics Division Chief,
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 Information and Regulatory History

    Sector Hampton Roads leadership made the strategic decision to
submit an Orgnization Modification Request to change the existing unit
name from ``Sector Hampton Roads Marine Insepction Zone and Captain of
the Port Zone'' (Sector Hampton Roads) to ``Sector Virginia Marine
Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone'' (Sector Virginia). The
action was necessary to more accurately reflect the Sector's geographic
operational responsibility and jurisdiction as well as to elimante
confusion and bolster community relations. From a strategic
communications and community relations perspective, keeping the name
``Sector Hampton Roads'' created a unique challenge when working and
coordinating efforts with communities, the media, and government
officials outside of the Hampton Roads region. The name Sector Hampton
Roads created confusion with outlying communities such as those in the
Upper Middle Peninsulas of Virginia as well as the Eastern Shore of
Virginia. By renaming the unit to ``Sector Virginia,'' it more
appropriately identifies the unit to our federal, state, and local
government agency partners, who cohesively service the state of
Virginia, with the exception of the Maryland-National Capital Region.
Also, the name change to ``Sector Virginia'' enhances communications
and formal Coast Guard name recoginition with our port partners who
attend statewide meetings in support of the Area Maritime Security
Committees, Area Committes and Harbor Safety Committees as well as
coordinating incident response during natural disasters and National
Special Security Events. The name change to ``Sector Virginia'' has no
effect on the area of operation boundary lines or existing
organizational structure.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to align the text of Coast Guard
regulations, with a change in the Coast Guard's internal organization.
Specifically, this rule amends 33 CFR 3.25-10, to reflect the changed
sector name from ``Sector Hampton Roads Marine Insepction Zone and
Captain of the Port Zone'' to ``Sector Virginia Marine Inspection Zone
and Captain of the Port Zone'', and makes corresponding changes to 33
CFR 100.501, 165.501, 165.503, 165.504, 165.506, 165.518, and 165.550.
    We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this
regulation. Under both 5 U.S.C. 553(b) (A) and (B), the Coast Guard
finds that this rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking
requirements because these changes involve rules of agency
organization, and good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM because
the changes made are all non-substantive. This rule consists only of
organizational amendments. These changes will have no substantive
effect on the public; therefore, it is unnecessary to publish an NPRM.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that, for the same
reasons, good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. The rule makes non-
substantive amendments to Coast Guard regulations, in order to align
with a change in the Coast Guard's internal organization. The amendment
describes the name change from Sector Hampton Roads to Sector Virginia.
This rule will have no substantive effect on the regulated public.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 14 U.S.C.
504(a)(2), as delegated, to establish, change the location of,
maintain, and operate Coast Guard shore establishments. The rule is
needed to reflect a change in the Coast Guard's internal organization.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and

Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 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 rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule 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 finding that
the name change will have no substantive effect on the public.

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.
    For the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on any member of the public,
including ``small entities.''
    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 call or email 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
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 determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule consists only of
an organizational amendment. It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L55 in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures.

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.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 3

    Organization and functions (Government agencies).

33 CFR Part 100

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

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 parts 3, 100, and 165 as follows:

PART 3--SAFETY COAST GUARD AREAS, DISTRICTS, SECTORS, MARINE
INSPECTION ZONES, AND CAPTAIN OF THE PORT ZONES

0
1. The authority citation for part 3 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  14 U.S.C. 92 & 93; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, para. 2(23).

Sec.  3.25-10  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  [thinsp]3.25-10, remove the words ``Hampton Roads''
wherever they appear and add in their place the word ``Virginia''.

 PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

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

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

Sec.  100.501  [Amended]

0
 4. In Sec.  100.501, remove the words ``Hampton Roads'' wherever they
appear and add in their place the word ``Virginia''.

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

Sec.  165.501  [Amended]

0
 6. In Sec.  165.501(b), remove the words ``Hampton Roads'' wherever
they appear and add in their place the word ``Virginia''.

Sec.  165.503  [Amended]

0
7. In Sec.  165.503:
0
a. In paragraph (a) amend the definition of ``Designated
Representative'' by removing the words ``Hampton Roads,''; and
0
b. Amend paragraphs (b) and (c) by removing the words ``Hampton Roads''
and adding their place ``Virginia.''

Sec.  165.504  [Amended]

0
 8. In Sec.  165.504(c)(1)(vii)(A), remove the words ``Hampton
Roads,''.

Sec.  165.506  [Amended]

0
 9. In Sec.  165.506, remove the words ``Hampton Roads'' wherever they
appear and add in their place the word ``Virginia''.

Sec.  165.518  [Amended]

0
10. In Sec.  165.518(c)(7), remove the words ``Hampton Roads'' wherever
they appear and add in their place the word ``Virginia''.

Sec.  165.550  [Amended]

0
11. In Sec.  165.550 (a)(3) and (d)(2)(iii), remove the words ``Hampton
Roads'' wherever they appear and add in their place the word
``Virginia''.

    Dated: January 30, 2020.
K.M. Carroll,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Commander.
[FR Doc. 2020-02214 Filed 2-5-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7701-7703]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02757]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1007; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00324-R;
Amendment 39-21917; AD 2022-02-20]
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 all
Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD) Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 and MBB-
BK 117 D-2 helicopters. This AD was prompted by report that a
collective bellcrank-K was found incorrectly installed on a helicopter.
This AD requires inspecting the collective bellcrank-K to determine if
it is correctly installed and has a correct position marking and,
depending on the findings, applicable corrective actions, as specified
in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is
incorporated by reference. This AD also allows installation of an
affected collective bellcrank-K, provided certain instructions are
followed. 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
final rule, 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. 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>. It is also available
in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1007.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1007; 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 2021-0074, dated March 15, 2021
(EASA AD 2021-0074), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus
Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD) (formerly Eurocopter Deutschland
GmbH; and Airbus Helicopters Inc., formerly American Eurocopter LLC)
Model MBB-BK117 C-2 and MBB-BK117 D-2 helicopters.
    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
Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 and MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 26, 2021 (86 FR
67364). The NPRM was prompted by a report that a collective bellcrank-K
(affected part) was found incorrectly installed on a helicopter.
Subsequent investigations revealed that the affected part was an in-
service replacement, and that the position marking on that part was
incorrect. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting the collective
bellcrank-K to determine if it is correctly installed and has a correct
position marking and, depending on the findings, applicable corrective
actions, as specified in EASA AD 2021-0074. The NPRM also proposed to
allow installation of an affected collective bellcrank-K, provided
certain instructions are followed.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address incorrect installation of a
collective bellcrank-K, which could lead to unwanted collective input,
resulting in reduced control of the helicopter. See EASA AD 2021-0074
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,
this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0074 requires a one-time inspection of an affected
part for correct installation by measuring the distance between the
front edge of the bearing block and the front edge of the affected
part, and for correct application of position markings, and, depending
on the findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective actions. If an
affected part is incorrectly installed, the corrective actions include
inspecting for signs of chafing on the bearing block, the control
lever, the forked lever, the sliding sleeve, and the bearing ring,
replacing any parts that have signs of chafing, and installing a
serviceable bellcrank-K with an applied position marking. If an
affected part is correctly installed but the position marking is not
correct, the corrective actions include re-working the affected part or
replacing the affected part with a serviceable part that has an applied
position marking. EASA AD 2021-0074 also allows installation of an
affected part, provided certain instructions are followed.
    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.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 140 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection for correct installation     0.50 work-hour x $85 per              $0          $42.50          $5,950
 and position marking.                   hour = $42.50.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacements or rework that would be required based on the results of
the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of
helicopters that might need this replacement or rework:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace collective bellcrank-K................  8 work-hours x $85 per hour =             $4,018          $4,698
                                                 $680.
Rework collective bellcrank-K.................  2 work-hours x $85 per hour =                  0             170
                                                 $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:

2022-02-20 Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD): Amendment

39-21917; Docket No. FAA-2021-1007; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-
00324-R.

(a) Effective Date

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

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD)
Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 and MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters, certificated in
any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6230, Main Rotor
Mast/Swashplate.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that a collective bellcrank-K
(affected part) was found incorrectly installed on a helicopter.
Subsequent investigations found that the affected part was an in-
service replacement, and that the position marking on that part was
incorrect. The FAA is issuing this AD to address incorrect
installation of a collective bellcrank-K, which could lead to
unwanted collective input, resulting in reduced control of the
helicopter.

(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, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2021-0074, dated March 15, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0074).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0074

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0074 requires compliance in terms of
flight hours, this AD requires using hours time-in-service.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2021-0074 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (3) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-
0074 specifies discarding a part, this AD requires removing that
part from service.
    (4) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-
0074 specifies contacting Airbus Helicopters for instructions to
rework a bellcrank-K, the rework must be accomplished using a method
approved by the Manager, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
Helicopters' EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by
the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (5) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-
0074 specifies to ``forecast the compliance time of Part IV and
schedule the accomplishment accordingly,'' for clarification, this
AD requires doing the correction of the position marking of the
bellcrank-K at the time specified in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2021-
0074.
    (6) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-
0074 specifies contacting Airbus Helicopters if there is mechanical
damage or corrosion on the bushings of the bellcrank assembly, this
AD does not require that action.
    (7) This AD does not mandate compliance with the ``Remarks''
section of EASA AD 2021-0074.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0074
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) 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 (k) 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.

(k) 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].

(l) 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 2021-0074,
dated March 15, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2021-0074, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]. 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-2021-1007.
    (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. 2022-02757 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 134 (Thursday, July 12, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32211-32213]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14946]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0104; FRL-9980-43--Region 9]

Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Yolo-Solano Air
Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a revision to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management
District (YSAQMD or ``District'') portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) from architectural coatings. We are approving
a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air
Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on August 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0104. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3024, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On May 3, 2018 (83 FR 19495), the EPA proposed to approve the
following rule into the California SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency                Rule No.              Rule title              Revised        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YSAQMD.............................            2.14  Architectural Coatings.....      10/12/2016      01/24/2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it
complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action
contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received one comment in support of regulating
VOC emissions, and another that was not germane to this rule.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rule
as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving this rule into
the California SIP.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
YSAQMD rule described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 10, 2018. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: June 22, 2018.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(293)(i)(B)(2) and
(c)(497)(i)(D)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan-in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (293) * * *

    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (2) Previously approved on January 2, 2004 in paragraph
(c)(293)(i)(B)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
(c)(497)(i)(D)(2), Rule 2.14, adopted on November 14, 2001.
* * * * *
    (497) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) * * *
    (2) Rule 2.14, ``Architectural Coatings,'' revised on October 12,
2016.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-14946 Filed 7-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 23 (Friday, February 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4949-4950]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02129]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82601; File No. SR-Phlx-2018-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Relocate the
Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance Rules

January 30, 2018.
    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 January 24, 2018, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') 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 Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to relocate the Consolidated Audit Trail
Compliance rules (``CAT Rules''), Rules 900A through 996A, to General
7, Sections 1 through 13 in the Exchange's rulebook's (``Rulebook'')
shell structure.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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
    The Exchange proposes to relocate the CAT Rules, currently
identified as Rules 900A through 996A, to General 7, Sections 1 through
13 of the Rulebook's shell structure.
    The Exchange adopted the CAT Rules to implement a consolidated
audit trail in order to capture customer and order event information to
comply with the provisions of the National Market System Plan Governing
the Consolidated Audit Trail.\3\ Because the CAT Rules apply across all
markets and to all products,\4\ the Exchange believes it is pertinent
that they be located in the General section of the Rulebook's shell;
therefore, the Exchange will amend the shell structure, creating a new
``General 7 Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance'' title under ``General
Equity and Options Rules,'' and make conforming changes to the
``Options Rules'' titles; moreover, this proposal is consistent with
similar filings concurrently submitted by the Affiliated Exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80256 (March 15,
2017), 82 FR 14526 (March 21, 2017) (SR-Phlx-2017-07) (Order
Approving Proposed Rule Changes To Adopt Consolidated Audit Trail
Compliance Rules).
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The relocation of the CAT Rules is part of the Exchange's continued
effort to promote efficiency and conformity of its processes with those
of its Affiliated Exchanges.\5\ The Exchange believes that the
migration of the CAT Rules to their new location will facilitate the
use of the Rulebook by Members \6\ of the Exchange who are members of
other Affiliated Exchanges. Moreover, the proposed changes are of a
non-substantive nature and will not amend the relocated rules other
than to update their numbers, make cross-reference changes, and make a
minor change to harmonize the proposed rule text with the filings
simultaneously submitted by the Affiliated Exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See footnote 3.
    \6\ Exchange Rule 1(r).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest,
by promoting efficiency and conformity of the Exchange's processes with
those of the Affiliated Exchanges and to make the Exchange's Rulebook
easier to read and more accessible to its Members. The Exchange
believes that the relocation of the CAT Rules and cross-reference
updates are of a non-substantive nature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 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
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes do not
impose a burden on competition because, as previously stated, they (i)
are of a non-substantive nature, (ii) are intended to harmonize the
Exchange's rules with those of its Affiliated Exchanges, and (iii) are
intended to organize the Rulebook in a way that it will ease the
Members' navigation and reading of the rules across the Affiliated
Exchanges.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing 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 for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \9\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \12\ permits the

Commission to 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 Exchange can reorganize its Rulebook as already approved by the
Commission. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay
and designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2018-11 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2018-11. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2018-11 and should be submitted on
or before February 23, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-02129 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 156 (Wednesday, August 12, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48746-48747]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17562]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89499; File No. SR-NYSE-2020-55]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules 7.36 and
7.37 Relating to Setter Priority and Allocation

August 6, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On June 24, 2020, New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend NYSE Rules 7.36 and 7.37 relating to
Setter Priority and Allocation. The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on June 30, 2020.\3\ The Commission
has received no comments on the proposed rule changes. The Commission
is approving the proposed rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89205 (June 30,
2020), 85 FR 40715 (June 30, 2020) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to modify the current operation of Setter
Priority on the Exchange by changing the definition of orders eligible
for Setter Priority and by changing the allocation that orders Setting
Priority of contra-side Aggressing Orders.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An ``Aggressing Order'' is defined as a buy (sell) order
that is or becomes marketable against a sell (buy) interest on the
Exchange Book. See NYSE Rule 7.36(a)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, NYSE Rule 7.36(h) provides that an order may be assigned
Setter Priority by (1) setting a new Best Bid or Offer (``BBO'') on the
Exchange and (2) joining or setting the National Best Bid or Offer
(``NBBO''), provided that such an order will not be eligible for Setter
Priority if there is an odd-lot sized order with Setter Priority at
that price.\5\ Proposed NYSE Rule 7.36(h) would be amended to provide
that an order is eligible for Setter Priority only if it sets a new
NBBO.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 40716.
    \6\ See id. at 40715-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, under NYSE Rule 7.37(b)(1), an order with Setter
Priority equal to the BBO is eligible for a 15% allocation of an
Aggressing Order

(rounded up to the next round lot size, or the full quantity of the
Aggressing Order). Proposed NYSE Rule 7.37(b)(1) would be amended to
provide that an order with Setter Priority equal to the BBO would be
eligible to trade in full with the contra-side Aggressing Order.\7\ The
Exchange also represents that under the proposal, (1) if an Aggressing
Order is greater in size than an order with Setter Priority, the order
with Setter Priority would be executed in full and the remainder of the
Aggressing Order would be allocated pursuant to NYSE Rule 7.37; and (2)
if an Aggressing Order is smaller in size than an order with Setter
Priority, the Aggressing Order would be executed in full, and the
remainder of the order with Setter Priority would retain its Setter
Priority status.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange also proposes to delete existing text in NYSE
Rule 7.37(b)(1)(C) pertaining to allocation when there are remaining
quantities of an Aggressing Order and an order with Setter Priority.
Under the proposal, either the order with Setter Priority, the
Aggressing Order, or both orders would execute in full; thus, such
an order book scenario would no longer be possible. See id. at
40716.
    \8\ See id. at 40715-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the
Exchange's proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to national
securities exchanges. In particular, the Commission finds that the
Exchange's proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\9\ which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed,
among other things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange asserts that assigning Setter Priority only to orders
that establish a new NBBO, and allowing such orders to execute in full
against incoming Aggressing Orders, would allow orders with Setter
Priority to operate similarly to top-of-book orders at national
securities exchanges with a price-time priority execution model and
would thereby incentivize member organizations to route price-forming,
liquidity-providing orders to the Exchange to the benefit of all market
participants.\10\ Because the Exchange's proposal would, unlike the
current rule, require Setter Priority orders to set a new NBBO to be
eligible for Setter Priority, and because the proposal would reward
Setter Priority orders with a greater opportunity to trade against
Aggressing Orders, the Commission believes that the proposed rule
change is reasonably designed to incentivize member organizations to
quote aggressively and improve the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 40717.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the foregoing, the Commission therefore finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\11\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2020-55) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-17562 Filed 8-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P