[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 184 (Monday, September 27, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53195-53197]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20825]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0505; Project Identifier 2018-SW-004-AD; Amendment
39-21721; AD 2021-19-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Leonardo S.p.a. Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. This AD was
prompted by reports of spurious in-flight disconnections of the
automatic flight control system (AFCS). This AD requires updating
certain ``Primus Epic'' system software, as specified in a European
Aviation Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency)
(EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 1, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 1,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this 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-2021-0505.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0505; 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, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA,
950 L'Enfant Plaza N SW, Washington, DC 20024; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0002, dated January 4, 2018
(EASA AD 2018-0002) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for certain Leonardo S.p.a. Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Leonardo S.p.a.
Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on July 7, 2021 (86 FR 35690). The NPRM was prompted by
reports of spurious in-flight disconnections of the AFCS. The NPRM
proposed to require updating certain ``Primus Epic'' system software,
as specified in EASA AD 2018-0002.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address spurious degradation or
unavailability of the full AFCS. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could result in temporary impairment of the automated flight
aid for control of the helicopter and increase the flightcrew's
workload. See EASA AD 2018-0002 for additional background information.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

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

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
requires adopting this AD as proposed. Except for minor editorial
changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the
changes will increase the economic burden on any operator. Accordingly,
the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2018-0002 requires installation of certain ``Primus Epic''
system software, depending on the helicopter configuration. EASA AD
2018-0002 allows installation of ``Primus Epic'' system software on a
helicopter after that helicopter has had the software upgrade
installed.
    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 128 helicopters of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Software upgrade......................  24 work-hours x $85 per               $0          $2,040        $261,120
                                         hour = $2,040.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of
this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact
on affected operators.

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:

2021-19-03 Leonardo S.p.a.: Amendment 39-21721; Docket No. FAA-2021-
0505; Project Identifier 2018-SW-004-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective November 1, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Leonardo S.p.a. Model AB139 and AW139
helicopters, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (2) of this AD, equipped with ``Primus Epic'' system
software release 7.4 (Phase 7 V1), 7.7 (Phase 7 V3) or 7.10 (Phase 7
V4).
    (1) Model AB139 and AW19 helicopters having serial number (S/N)
31005, 31006, and S/Ns 31008 through 31157 inclusive; and S/Ns 41001
through 41023 inclusive.
    (2) Model AW139 helicopters having S/N 31201 and subsequent, and
S/N 41201 and subsequent.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2200, Auto Flight
System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of spurious in-flight
disconnections of the automatic flight control system (AFCS). The
FAA is issuing this AD to address spurious degradation or
unavailability of the full AFCS. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could result in temporary impairment of the automated
flight aid for control of the helicopter and increase the
flightcrew's workload.

(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 Aviation Safety Agency (now European Union
Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD 2018-0002, dated January 4, 2018
(EASA AD 2018-0002).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2018-0002

    (1) Where EASA AD 2018-0002 refers to flight hours (FH), this AD
requires using hours time-in-service.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2018-0002 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (3) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2018-0002 does not apply
to this AD.
    (4) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2018-
0002 specifies to download an option file from a certain website,
that method of installation is not required by this AD.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2018-0002
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_ADDRESS>    (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, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, FAA, 950 L'Enfant Plaza N SW, Washington, DC
20024; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2018-0002, dated
January 4, 2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2018-0002, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-
Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) 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>. This material may be
found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2021-0505.
    (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_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on August 30, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-20825 Filed 9-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 130 (Tuesday, July 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 38643]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15922]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: High Density
Traffic Airports; Slot Allocation and Transfer Methods

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on April 14, 2014, vol. 79, no. 71, pages 20962-20963. This
information collection is used to allocate slots and maintain accurate
records of slot transfers at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
(DCA), the only High Density Traffic Airport. The information is
provided by air carriers, commuter operators, or other persons holding
a slot at DCA or by persons conducting an Other (unscheduled) operation
at DCA. This notice serves as a correction to the notice for public
comments published on June 27, 2014, vol. 79, number 124, page 36574.
This notice clarifies details of the collection activity and revises
hourly burden figures.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by August 7, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0524.
    Title: High Density Traffic Airports; Slot Allocation and Transfer
Methods.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
information collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: Information is reported to the FAA by air carriers,
commuter operators or other persons with slots at DCA. The respondents
must notify the FAA of: (1) Requests for confirmation of transferred
slots; (2) slots required to be returned or slots voluntarily returned;
(3) requests to be included in a lottery for available slots; (4) usage
of slots on a bi-monthly basis; and (5) requests for short-term use of
off-peak hour slots. The FAA uses this information to allocate and
withdraw takeoff and landing slots at DCA, and to confirm transfers of
slots made among the operators, thus maintaining an accurate slot base
at DCA. Information also is reported by persons conducting unscheduled
operations at DCA. Those respondents must obtain a reservation from the
FAA prior to an unscheduled operation. The FAA uses this information to
provide air traffic control services at DCA.
    Respondents: Approximately 15 air carriers and commuter operators;
as many as 78,840 unscheduled operations.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 34 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 3,441 hours.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 1, 2014.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2014-15922 Filed 7-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 243 (Thursday, December 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81996-81999]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27719]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90638; File No. SR-MIAX-2020-37]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule

December 11, 2020.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 December 1, 2020, Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX Options'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, at MIAX's principal
office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to (i) make a minor, corrective edit and
clarifying change to one of the footnotes in Section 1)b)i) of the Fee
Schedule; and (ii) amend the exchange groupings of options exchanges
within the routing fee table in Section 1)c) of the Fee Schedule.
Fee Schedule Cleanup
    First, the Exchange proposes to amend footnote ``!'' in Section
1)b)i) of the Fee Schedule to make a minor, corrective edit and
clarifying change. Footnote ``!'' currently provides as follows: ``The
SPIKES Combination portion of a SPIKES Combination Order will be
charged at the Combination rate and other legs will be charged at the
Complex rate. All fees are per contract per leg.'' Pursuant to Exchange
Rule 518, Interpretation and Policy .07(a), a ``SPIKES Combination'' is
a purchase (sale) of a SPIKES call option and sale (purchase) of a
SPIKES put option having the same expiration date and strike price.\3\
Further, a ``SPIKES Combo Order'' is an order to purchase or sell one
or more SPIKES option series and the offsetting number of SPIKES
Combinations defined by the delta.\4\ The Exchange proposes to amend
footnote ``!'' to delete the word ``Combination'' in the phrase
``SPIKES Combination Order'' and replace it with the word ``Combo.''
The purpose of this proposed change is to provide the correct name of
the type of order in footnote ``!''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Rule 518, Interpretation and Policy .07(a)(1).
    \4\ See Exchange Rule 518, Interpretation and Policy .07(a)(3).

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

Update Group of Certain Options Exchanges
    Next, the Exchange proposes to amend the exchange groupings of
options exchanges within the routing fee table in Section 1)c) of the
Fee Schedule to adjust certain groupings of options exchanges.
    Currently, the Exchange assesses routing fees based upon (i) the
origin type of the order, (ii) whether or not it is an order for
standard option classes in the Penny Interval Program \5\ (``Penny
classes'') or an order for standard option classes which are not in the
Penny Interval Program (``Non-Penny classes'') (or other explicitly
identified classes), and (iii) to which away market it is being routed.
This assessment practice is identical to the routing fees assessment
practice currently utilized by the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX PEARL,
LLC (``MIAX PEARL'') and MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald''). This is
also similar to the methodologies utilized by other competing options
exchanges, such as the Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe BZX''), in
assessing routing fees. Cboe BZX has exchange groupings in its fee
schedule, similar to those of the Exchange, whereby several exchanges
are grouped into the same category, dependent on the order's origin
type and whether it is a Penny or Non-Penny class.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88988 (June 2,
2020), 85 FR 35153 (June 8, 2020) (SR-MIAX-2020-13) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Exchange Rule 404, Series of Option Contracts Open for
Trading, Exchange Rule 510, Minimum Price Variations and Minimum
Trading Increments, and Exchange Rule 516, Order Types Defined, To
Conform the Rules to Section 3.1 of the Plan for the Purpose of
Developing and Implementing Procedures Designed To Facilitate the
Listing and Trading of Standardized Options).
    \6\ See Cboe BZX Fee Schedule under ``Fee Codes and Associated
Fees.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of conducting a periodic review of the current
transaction fees and rebates charged by away markets, the Exchange has
determined to amend the exchange groupings of options exchanges within
the routing fee table to better reflect the associated costs of routing
customer orders to those options exchanges for execution. In
particular, the Exchange proposes to amend the seventh ``Routed, Public
Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non-Penny Program'' exchange
grouping to move Nasdaq MRX from the seventh exchange grouping into the
eighth ``Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non-
Penny Program'' exchange grouping. The impact of this proposed change
will be that the routing fee for Public Customer orders that are not
Priority Customer orders in the Penny Program, that are routed to
Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``Nasdaq MRX''), will increase from $1.15 to $1.25.
The Exchange notes that no options exchanges were removed from the
routing fee table entirely, with the only change being the change in
categorization for Nasdaq MRX. The purpose of the proposed rule change
is to adjust the routing fee for certain orders routed to Nasdaq MRX to
reflect the associated costs for that routed execution.
    Accordingly, with the proposed change, the routing fee table will
be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Description                              Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Routed, Priority Customer, Penny Program, to: NYSE American,       $0.15
 BOX, Cboe, Cboe EDGX Options, Nasdaq MRX, Nasdaq PHLX
 (except SPY), Nasdaq BX Options.............................
Routed, Priority Customer, Penny Program, to: NYSE Arca             0.65
 Options, Cboe BZX Options, Cboe C2, Nasdaq GEMX, Nasdaq ISE,
 NOM, Nasdaq PHLX (SPY only), MIAX Emerald, MIAX PEARL.......
Routed, Priority Customer, Non-Penny Program, to: NYSE              0.15
 American, BOX, Cboe, Cboe EDGX Options, Nasdaq ISE, Nasdaq
 MRX, Nasdaq PHLX, Nasdaq BX Options.........................
Routed, Priority Customer, Non-Penny Program, to: NYSE Arca         1.00
 Options, Cboe BZX Options, Cboe C2, MIAX PEARL, MIAX
 Emerald, Nasdaq GEMX, NOM...................................
Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer,            0.65
 Penny Program, to: NYSE American, NYSE Arca Options, Cboe
 BZX Options, BOX, Cboe, Cboe C2, Cboe EDGX Options, Nasdaq
 GEMX, Nasdaq ISE, Nasdaq MRX, MIAX PEARL, MIAX Emerald, NOM,
 Nasdaq PHLX, Nasdaq BX Options..............................
Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non-       1.00
 Penny Program, to: NYSE American, Cboe, Nasdaq PHLX, Nasdaq
 ISE, Cboe EDGX Options......................................
Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non-       1.15
 Penny Program, to: Cboe C2, BOX, Nasdaq BX Options, NOM,
 MIAX PEARL, MIAX Emerald....................................
Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non-       1.25
 Penny Program, to: Cboe BZX Options, NYSE Arca Options,
 Nasdaq GEMX, Nasdaq MRX.....................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining to amend its Routing Fees, the Exchange took into
account transaction fees and rebates assessed by the away markets to
which the Exchange routes orders, as well as the Exchange's clearing
costs,\7\ administrative, regulatory, and technical costs associated
with routing orders to an away market. The Exchange uses unaffiliated
routing brokers to route orders to the away markets; the costs
associated with the use of these services are included in the routing
fees specified in the Fee Schedule. This routing fees structure is not
only similar to the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX PEARL and MIAX Emerald,
but is also comparable to the structures in place at other competing
options exchanges, such as Cboe BZX.\8\ The Exchange's routing fee
structure approximates the Exchange's costs associated with routing
orders to away markets. The per-contract transaction fee amount
associated with each grouping closely approximates the Exchange's all-
in cost (plus an additional, non-material amount) to execute that
corresponding contract at that corresponding exchange. The Exchange
notes that in determining whether to adjust certain groupings of
options exchanges in the routing fee table, the Exchange considered the
transaction fees and rebates assessed by away markets, and determined
to amend the grouping of exchanges that assess transaction fees for
routed orders within a similar range. This same logic and structure
applies to all of the groupings in the routing fees table. By utilizing
the same structure that is utilized by the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX
PEARL and

MIAX Emerald, the Exchange's Members \9\ will be assessed routing fees
in a similar manner. The Exchange believes that this structure will
minimize any confusion as to the method of assessing routing fees
between the three exchanges. The Exchange notes that its affiliates,
MIAX PEARL and MIAX Emerald, will file to make the same proposed
routing fee change for Nasdaq MRX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The OCC amended its clearing fee from $0.01 per contract
side to $0.02 per contract side. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 71769 (March 21, 2014), 79 FR 17214 (March 27, 2014) (SR-OCC-
2014-05).
    \8\ See supra note 6. The Cboe BZX fee schedule has exchange
groupings, whereby several exchanges are grouped into the same
category, dependent on the order's Origin type and whether it is a
Penny or Non-Penny class. For example, Cboe BZX fee code RR covers
routed customer orders in Non-Penny classes to NYSE Arca, Cboe C2,
Nasdaq ISE, Nasdaq Gemini, MIAX Emerald, MIAX PEARL, or NOM, with a
single fee of $1.25 per contract. Id.
    \9\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \10\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \11\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ 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 and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed change to make a minor,
corrective edit and clarifying change to footnote ``!'' in Section
1)b)i) of the Fee Schedule promotes just and equitable principles of
trade and removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system because the proposed
change will provide greater clarity to Members and the public regarding
the Exchange's Fee Schedule. The Exchange believes that it is in the
public interest for the Fee Schedule to be accurate and concise so as
to eliminate the potential for confusion.
    The Exchange believes the proposed change to the exchange groupings
of options exchanges within the routing fee table furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act and is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed change will
continue to apply in the same manner to all Members that are subject to
routing fees. The Exchange believes the proposed change to the routing
fee table exchange groupings furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act and is designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade and is not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed change
seeks to recoup costs that are incurred by the Exchange when routing
customer orders to away markets on behalf of Members and does so in the
same manner to all Members that are subject to routing fees. The costs
to the Exchange to route orders to away markets for execution primarily
includes transaction fees and rebates assessed by the away markets to
which the Exchange routes orders, in addition to the Exchange's
clearing costs, administrative, regulatory and technical costs. The
Exchange believes that the proposed re-categorization of certain
exchange groupings would enable the Exchange to recover the costs it
incurs to route orders to Nasdaq MRX. The per-contract transaction fee
amount associated with each grouping approximates the Exchange's all-in
cost (plus an additional, non-material amount) to execute the
corresponding contract at the corresponding exchange.

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 Exchange's proposal to make
a minor, corrective edit and clarifying change to footnote ``!'' in
Section 1)b)i) of the Fee Schedule is not a competitive change but
rather is designed to remedy a minor non-substantive issue and provide
added clarity to the Fee Schedule in order to avoid potential confusion
on the part of market participants. In addition, the Exchange does not
believe the proposal will impose any burden on inter-market competition
as the proposal does not address any competitive issues and is intended
to protect investors by providing further transparency regarding the
Exchange's Fee Schedule.
    The Exchange believes its proposed re-categorization of certain
exchange groupings is intended to enable the Exchange to recover the
costs it incurs to route orders to away markets, particularly Nasdaq
MRX. The Exchange does not believe that this proposal imposes any
unnecessary burden on competition because it seeks to recoup costs
incurred by the Exchange when routing orders to away markets on behalf
of Members and other exchanges have similar routing fee structures.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \15\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2020-37 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-MIAX-2020-37. 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-MIAX-2020-37, and should be
submitted on or before January 7, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-27719 Filed 12-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58986-58987]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23583]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC12-141-000.
    Applicants: CPV Cimarron Renewable Energy Company, LLC, Cimarron
Wind Energy Holdings II, LLC, Cimarron Wind Energy Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers and Expedited Action of CPV
Cimarron Renewable Energy Company, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 9/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120918-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG12-112-000.
    Applicants: Ocotillo Express LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Ocotillo Express LLC.
    Filed Date: 9/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120918-5049.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2643-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: 2012-09-18 Resource Adequacy Deliverability for
Distributed Generation Amendment to be effective 11/18/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120918-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2644-000.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Avista Corp FERC Rate Schedule No. 184 to be effective
10/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120918-5051.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2645-000.
    Applicants: Pastoria Energy Facility L.L.C.
    Description: Notice of Succession to be effective 9/19/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120918-5057.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2646-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Perrin Ranch LGIA--Compliance Filing to be effective
10/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 9/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120918-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2647-000.
    Applicants: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.

    Description: Normal Filing sections 11-14 to be effective 9/18/
2012.
    Filed Date: 9/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120918-5069.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2648-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: 2041R1 Substitute Kansas City Board of Public
Utilities PTP to be effective 12/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 9/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120918-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2649-000.
    Applicants: Groton Wind, LLC.
    Description: 20120918--baseline to be effective 10/26/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120918-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/9/12.

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

    Dated: September 18, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23583 Filed 9-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 52656]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21448]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14211-000]

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management; Notice of
Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On June 10, 2011, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to
section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the
feasibility of the Elizabeth Webbing Hydroelectric Project to be
located on the Blackstone River, in Central Falls, Providence County,
Rhode Island. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is
to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application
during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the
permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise
enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) The
existing 10-foot-high, 156-foot-long granite masonry Elizabeth Webbing
Dam with proposed 12-inch-high flashboards; (2) an existing 26-acre
impoundment with a normal maximum water surface elevation of 34.9 feet
(NGVD 1929); (3) an existing trashrack and 40-foot-wide, 39-foot-long
headrace; (4) an existing 40-foot-wide, 70-foot-long powerhouse
containing a 745-kilowatt turbine connected to a generator; (5) an
existing tailrace; (6) proposed 400-foot-long, 5-kilovolt and 70-foot-
long, 15-kilovolt transmission lines; and (7) appurtenant facilities.
The project would have an estimated annual generation of 4,360
megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Catherine Sparks, Chief, Division of Forest
Environment, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 235
Promenade Street, Providence, RI 02908; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Brandon Cherry; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http: //www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14211-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: August 16, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-21448 Filed 8-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 174 (Friday, September 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45479-45480]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19374]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84013; File No. SR-BX-2018-025]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change To Make Permanent the Exchange's Retail Price Improvement
Program, Which is Set To Expire on December 31, 2018

August 31, 2018.
    On July 9, 2018, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange
Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to make
permanent the Exchange's Retail Price Improvement Program. The proposed
rule change was

published for comment in the Federal Register on July 26, 2018.\3\ The
Commission has received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83681 (July 20,
2018), 83 FR 35516.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is September 9, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds it appropriate
to designate a longer period within which to take action on the
proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act and for the reasons stated above,\5\ designates
October 24, 2018, as the date by which the Commission shall either
approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-BX-2018-025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-19374 Filed 9-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


AIPORT DEICING CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

OW-2004-0038

DCN __AD00764____________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER

40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 29, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38062-38065]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16314]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0646; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-224-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Galaxy
and Gulfstream 200 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed

AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and
correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes
the unsafe condition as:

    Cracked nuts * * * were found on aircraft's production line
during routine post assembly inspection. Investigation revealed that
the cracks resulted from hydrogen embrittlement combined with high
hardness. Non-conformity with certified mechanical properties of
this fastener can potentially lead to an unsafe condition.

The unsafe condition is cracked nuts in multiple locations (including
aileron fittings, rudder tab assembly and mounting structure for power
drive units) could result in failure of affected locations and
consequent reduced controllability or reduced structural capability of
the airplane. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended
to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 15, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, P.O. Box 2206, Mail Station D-25,
Savannah, Georgia 31402-2206; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.gulfstream.com/product_support/technical_pubs/pubs/index.htm. You may review copies
of the referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Borfitz, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2677; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-0646;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-224-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI), which is the
aviation authority for Israel, has issued Israeli Airworthiness
Directive 57-10-06-18, dated July 27, 2010 (referred to after this as
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    Cracked nuts (P/N [part number] MS-21042L3) were found on
aircraft's production line during routine post assembly inspection.
Investigation revealed that the cracks resulted from hydrogen
embrittlement combined with high hardness. Non-conformity with
certified mechanical properties of this fastener can potentially
lead to an unsafe condition.

The unsafe condition is cracked nuts in multiple locations (including
aileron fittings, rudder tab assembly and mounting structure for power
drive units) could result in failure of affected locations and
consequent reduced controllability or reduced structural capability of
the airplane. The required actions include replacing nuts having
P[sol]N MS-21042L3, and in certain locations, a one time radiographic
inspection for cracked nuts and replacing any cracked nuts. You may
obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Gulfstream Aerospace LP has issued Service Bulletin 200-51-366,
dated March 30, 2010, including Appendix A: Israel Aircraft Industries
Document IS951400E, Radiographic Inspection of Self-Locking Nut P/N
MS21042L3, Revision A, dated January 25, 2010. The actions described in
this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 2 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 227 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the
service information lists required parts costs that are covered

under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these
costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties,
some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $38,590, or $19,295 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Gulfstream Aerospace LP: Docket No. FAA-2011-0646; Directorate
Identifier 2010-NM-224-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by August 15, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Galaxy and
Gulfstream 200 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial
numbers 219 through 231 inclusive.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 51: Standard
Practices/Structures.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    Cracked nuts * * * were found on aircraft's production line
during routine post assembly inspection. Investigation revealed that
the cracks resulted from hydrogen embrittlement combined with high
hardness. Non-conformity with certified mechanical properties of
this fastener can potentially lead to an unsafe condition.

The unsafe condition is cracked nuts in multiple locations
(including aileron fittings, rudder tab assembly and mounting
structure for power drive units) could result in failure of affected
locations and consequent reduced controllability or reduced
structural capability of the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Actions

    (g) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, do the
applicable actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this
AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions in Gulfstream
Service Bulletin 200-51-366, dated March 30, 2010, including
Appendix A: Israel Aircraft Industries Document IS951400E,
Radiographic Inspection of Self-Locking Nut P/N MS21042L3, Revision
A, dated January 25, 2010.
    (1) For all airplanes: Replace nuts having part number (P/N) MS-
21042L3 in the applicable areas identified in Steps 4, 5, 6, and 7
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Gulfstream Service Bulletin
200-51-366, dated March 30, 2010, including Appendix A: Israel
Aircraft Industries Document IS951400E, Radiographic Inspection of
Self-Locking Nut P/N MS21042L3, Revision A, dated January 25, 2010.
    (2) For airplanes having serial numbers 224 through 231
inclusive: Do the actions in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii).
    (i) Replace nuts having P/N MS-21042L3 at the location specified
in Step 8.H. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Gulfstream
Service Bulletin 200-51-366, dated March 30, 2010, including
Appendix A: Israel Aircraft Industries Document IS951400E,
Radiographic Inspection of Self-Locking Nut P/N MS21042L3, Revision
A, dated January 25, 2010.
    (ii) Do a radiographic inspection for cracking of nuts having P/
N MS-21042L3 at the location specified in Step 8.J. of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Gulfstream Service Bulletin 200-51-
366, dated March 30, 2010, including Appendix A: Israel Aircraft
Industries Document IS951400E, Radiographic Inspection of Self-
Locking Nut P/N MS21042L3, Revision A, dated January 25, 2010.
Before further flight replace all cracked nuts.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (h) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Mike Borfitz,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

Related Information

    (i) Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI)
Airworthiness Directive 57-10-06-18, dated July 27, 2010; and
Gulfstream Service Bulletin 200-51-366, dated March 30, 2010,
including Appendix A: Israel Aircraft Industries Document IS951400E,
Radiographic Inspection of Self-Locking Nut P/N MS21042L3, Revision
A, dated January 25, 2010; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 21, 2011.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-16314 Filed 6-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 110 (Thursday, June 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30941-30942]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12188]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1129]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; National Agriculture
and Food Defense Strategy Survey

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the
collection of information by July 12, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public
Comments'' or by using the search function. The OMB control number for
this information collection is 0910-0855. Also include the FDA docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

National Agriculture and Food Defense Strategy Survey

OMB Control Number 0910-0855--Extension

    We are seeking OMB approval of the National Agriculture and Food
Defense Strategy (NAFDS) under section 108 of the FDA Food and Safety
Modernization Act (FSMA). This is a voluntary survey of State, local,
territorial, and/or tribal (SLTT) governments intended to gauge
government activities in food and agriculture defense from intentional
contamination and emerging threats. The collected information will be
included in the mandatory NAFDS followup Report to Congress. The
authority for us to collect the information derives from the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs' authority provided in section
1003(d)(2)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
393(d)(2)(C)).
    Protecting the nation's food and agriculture supply against
intentional contamination and other emerging threats is an important
responsibility shared by SLTT governments as well as private sector
partners. On January 4, 2011, the President signed into law FSMA. FSMA
focuses on ensuring the safety of the U.S. food supply by shifting the
efforts of Federal regulators from response to prevention and
recognizes the importance of strengthening existing collaboration among
all stakeholders to achieve common public health and security goals.
FSMA identifies some key priorities for working with partners in areas
such as reliance on Federal, State, and local agencies for inspections;
improving foodborne illness surveillance; and leveraging and enhancing
State and local food safety and defense capacities. Section 108 of FSMA
(NAFDS) requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), in coordination

with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to work together with
State, local, territorial, and tribal governments to monitor and
measure progress in food defense.
    In 2015, the initial NAFDS Report to Congress detailed the specific
Federal response to food and agriculture defense goals, objectives, key
initiatives, and activities that HHS, USDA, DHS, and other stakeholders
planned to accomplish to meet the objectives outlined in FSMA. The
NAFDS charts a direction for how Federal Agencies, in cooperation with
SLTT governments and private sector partners, protect the nation's food
supply against intentional contamination. Not later than 4 years after
the initial NAFDS Report to Congress (2015), and every 4 years
thereafter (i.e., 2019, 2023, 2027, etc.), HHS, USDA, and DHS are
required to revise and submit an updated report to the relevant
committees of Congress.
    FDA is the Agency primarily responsible for obtaining the
information from Federal and SLTT partners to complete the NAFDS Report
to Congress. An interagency working group will conduct the survey and
collect and update the NAFDS as directed by FSMA, including developing
metrics and measuring progress for the evaluation process.
    The survey of Federal and State partners will be used to determine
what food defense activities, if any, Federal and/or SLTT agencies have
completed (or are planning on completing) from 2021 to 2025. Planning
for the local, territorial, and tribal information collections will
commence during this period of renewal. The survey will continue to be
repeated approximately every 2 to 4 years, as described in section 108
of FSMA. The NAFDS survey is being administered for the purpose of
monitoring progress in food and agricultural defense by government
agencies.
    A purposive sampling strategy is employed, such that the government
agencies participating in food and agricultural defense are asked to
respond to the voluntary survey. Food defense leaders responsible for
conducting food defense activities during a food emergency for their
jurisdiction are identified and will receive an emailed invitation to
complete the survey online; they will be provided with a web link to
the survey. The survey will be conducted electronically on the FDA.gov
web portal, and results will be analyzed by the interagency working
group.
    Description of Respondents: Respondents to this collection are SLTT
government representatives (survey respondents) who are food defense
leaders responsible for conducting food defense activities during a
food emergency for their jurisdictions.
    In the Federal Register of January 4, 2021 (86 FR 104), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. Although one comment was received, it was
not responsive to the four collection of information topics solicited
and therefore will not be discussed in this document.
    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                              Activity                                  Number of      responses per     Total annual    Average burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses       per response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLTT Surveys.......................................................             500                1              500             0.33              165
                                                                                (20 minutes)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    The FDA Office of Partnerships reviewed the questionnaire and
provided the estimate of time to complete the survey. The total burden
is based on our previous experiences conducting surveys. The burden has
been revised to reflect the total number of States and possible number
of local, tribal, and territorial entities that may partake of the
survey. Based on a review of the information collection since our last
request for OMB approval, we have increased our burden estimate by 149
hours (from 16.17 to 165 hours) and 451 respondents (from 49 to 500
respondents).

    Dated: June 7, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-12188 Filed 6-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: December 15, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 240)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 74259-74262]
[DOCID:fr15de05-21]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2005-ME-0003; A-1-FRL-8008-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maine; Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings
Regulation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Maine. This revision establishes
requirements to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
architectural and industrial maintenance coatings. The intended effect
of this action is to propose approval of these requirements. This
action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 17, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Regional Material in
EDocket (RME) ID Number R01-OAR-2005-ME-0003 by one of the following
methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow

the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Agency Web site: http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ Regional Material

in EDocket (RME), EPA's electronic public docket and comment system,
will be replaced by an enhanced federal-wide electronic docket
management and comment system located at http://www.regulations.gov. On

November 28, 2005, when that occurs, you will be redirected to that
site to access the docket EPA-R01-OAR-2005-ME-0003 and submit comments.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    3. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    4. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    5. Mail: ``RME ID Number R01-OAR-2005-ME-0003,'' David Conroy,
Chief, Air Programs Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code
CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023.
    6. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: David
Conroy, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
One

Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Regional Material in EDocket
(RME) ID Number R01-OAR-2005-ME-0003. EPA's policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public docket without change and may
be made available online at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, including

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

available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in RME or in hard copy at Office of
Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New
England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA.
EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Arnold, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023,
(617) 918-1047<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    In addition to the publicly available docket materials available
for inspection electronically in Regional Material in EDocket, and the
hard copy available at the Regional Office, which are identified in the
ADDRESSES section above, copies of the state submittal and EPA's
technical support document are also available for public inspection
during normal business hours, by appointment at the Bureau of Air
Quality Control, Department of Environmental Protection, First Floor of
the Tyson Building, Augusta Mental Health Institute Complex, Augusta,
ME 04333-0017.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that
support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at your estimate.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Offer alternatives.
    7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
    8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate
regional file/rulemaking identification number in the subject line on
the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you
provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your
comments.

II. Rulemaking Information

    This section is organized as follows:

A. What action is EPA taking?
B. What are the requirements of Maine's new regulation?
C. Why is EPA proposing to approve this regulation?
D. What is the process for EPA to approve this SIP revision?

A. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve Maine's Chapter 151, ``Architectural
and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings,'' and to incorporate this
regulation into the Maine SIP.

B. What are the requirements of Maine's new regulation?

    Maine's Chapter 151 applies to any person who supplies, sells,
offers for sale, or manufactures, any architectural coating for use
within the State of Maine and to any person who applies, or solicits
the application of, any architectural coating within the State of
Maine. The rule includes VOC content limits for several categories of
architectural coatings such as roof coatings, swimming pool coatings,
and traffic marking coatings. Aerosol coating products, as well as
architectural coatings sold in a container with a volume of one liter
or less, are exempt from the regulation.
    In addition, Chapter 151 includes the appropriate testing and
recordkeeping requirements to ensure compliance with the specified
performance standards. Specifically, the rule requires the use of EPA
test methods and test procedures adopted by ASTM, South Coast AQMD, and
Bay Area AQMD. The rule also allows the use of alternative test methods
that have been approved by the Maine DEP and EPA. Finally, the rule
requires compliance with the specified VOC content limits by January 1,
2006 (with one exception).\1\ Coatings manufactured prior to January 1,
2006, however, may be sold, supplied, offered for sale, or applied
after January 1, 2006, so long as the coating complied with the
standards in effect at the time the coating was manufactured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The rule includes both a January 1, 2006 and a January 1,
2011 emission limit for varnishes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Why is EPA proposing to approve this regulation?

    EPA has evaluated Maine's Chapter 151 and has found that this
regulation is generally consistent with EPA guidance and the Ozone
Transport Commission (OTC) model rule for AIM coatings. The specific
requirements of the regulation and EPA's evaluation of these
requirements are detailed in a

memorandum dated November 10, 2005, entitled ``Technical Support
Document--Maine--Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings
Regulation'' (TSD). The TSD and Maine's Chapter 151 are available in
the docket supporting this action.
    The OTC has developed model rules for several VOC source
categories, and the OTC states, including Maine, have signed a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) committing to adopt these model
rules. One of the categories for which a model rule has been developed
is architectural coatings. (See ``OTC Model Rule for Architectural and
Industrial Maintenance Coatings,'' issued March 28, 2001.)
    Several other OTC states have also recently adopted an AIM coatings
rule based on the OTC model rule, and EPA has already approved some of
these states' rules.\2\ The OTC model rule and Maine's rule include
emission limits that are at least as stringent as, and in some cases
more stringent than, EPA's AIM coatings rule.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For example, EPA approved Pennsylvania's AIM coatings rule
on November 23, 2004 (69 FR 68080), and New York's AIM rule on
December 13, 2004 (69 FR 72118).
    \3\ See ``National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards
for Architectural Coatings,'' 40 CFR Part 59, Subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted, however, that there are two cases where the
emission limits in Maine's Chapter 151 differ from the limits in the
OTC model rule. Specifically, the OTC rule includes a 350 g VOC per
liter emission limit for varnishes. In contrast, Maine's rule includes
two emission limits for varnishes: (1) a 450 g VOC per liter emission
limit with a January 1, 2006 compliance date; and (2) a 350 g VOC per
liter limit with a January 1, 2011 compliance date. Maine's emission
limits are acceptable, however, because Maine's 2006 limit for
varnishes is consistent with EPA's limit for varnishes. Also, the
emission limits for stains in Maine's rule differ from those in the OTC
model rule. The OTC rule includes a 250 g VOC per liter limit for
stains. Maine's rule includes an emission limit of 550 g VOC per liter
for interior wood clear and semitransparent stains and a 250 g VOC per
liter limit for all other stains. Thus, Maine's rule is less stringent
for interior wood clear and semitransparent stains than the OTC rule.
Maine's 550 g VOC per liter limit is, however, acceptable since it is
consistent with the limit for interior wood clear and semitransparent
stains in EPA's rule.
    EPA is aware that concerns have been raised about the achievability
of VOC content limits of some of the product categories under the Maine
AIM coatings rule. Although we are approving this rule today, the
Agency is concerned that if the rule's limits make it impossible for
manufacturers to produce coatings that are desirable to consumers,
there is a possibility that users may misuse the products by adding
additional solvent, thereby circumventing the rule's intended VOC
emission reductions. We intend to work with Maine and manufacturers to
explore ways to ensure that the rule achieves the intended VOC emission
reductions, and we intend to address this issue in evaluating the
amount of VOC emission reduction credit attributable to the rule. EPA
has issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit
comments, data, and information for determining the emission reductions
achieved from architectural coating rules. (See 70 FR 51694; August 31,
2005.)
    Maine did not submit its Chapter 151 SIP submittal to meet any
specific control requirements under the Clean Air Act. However,
subsequently, on June 9, 2005, Maine submitted its 5 percent increment
of progress plan which relies on reductions from Chapter 151. In
today's action, EPA is proposing to approve Chapter 151 because it will
strengthen Maine's SIP, and we are not deciding what level of emissions
reductions the rule will achieve. EPA will evaluate the reductions
Maine is claiming from Chapter 151 in its 5 percent increment of
progress plan when the Agency takes action on that plan.

D. What is the process for EPA to approve this SIP revision?

    EPA is proposing to approve Maine's AIM coatings rule and is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this proposal or
on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before EPA
takes final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA New
England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
proposal, or by submitting comments electronically, by mail, or through
hand delivery/courier following the directions in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION, I. General Information section of this proposal.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Maine's Chapter 151, ``Architectural
and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings,'' and to incorporate this
regulation into the Maine SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission
for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable
law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a
SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air
Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: December 5, 2005.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 05-24076 Filed 12-14-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P