[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 11, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44037-44040]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14596]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0660; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01561-E;
Amendment 39-22474; AD 2023-12-16]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) Model Trent 1000
engines. This AD was prompted by reports of excessive wear on the inner
seal fins of certain high-pressure turbine (HPT) triple seals. This AD
requires an inspection of the HPT triple seal for excessive wear and,
depending on the results of the inspection, replacement of the HPT
triple seal and the intermediate-pressure turbine (IPT) disk, as
specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which
is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 15, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 15,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0660; 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 mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), 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.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For the EASA AD identified in this final rule, contact
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221
8999 000; email: [email protected]; website: easa.europa.eu. You may
find this material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
     You may view this EASA AD at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0660.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sungmo Cho, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (781) 238-
7241; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain RRD Model Trent
1000-AE3, Trent 1000-CE3, Trent 1000-D3, Trent 1000-G3, Trent 1000-H3,
Trent 1000-J3, Trent 1000-K3, Trent 1000-L3, Trent 1000-M3, Trent 1000-
N3, Trent 1000-P3, Trent 1000-Q3, and Trent 1000-R3 engines. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on April 7, 2023 (88 FR 20782). The
NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2022-0241, dated December 7, 2022, issued
by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union (EASA AD 2022-0241) (referred to after this as the
MCAI). The MCAI states that occurrences have been reported of finding
higher than expected levels of wear on the seal fins of certain HPT
triple seals. The secondary air system is affected by the resulting
increased turbine cooling air leakage, which changes the air flow
around the IPT disk. The Modulated Air System (MAS) was designed to
optimize cooling air flow and intended to be active only during cruise
conditions, but the design did not account for a high level of seal
wear. Rolls-Royce issued Non-Modification Service Bulletin Trent 1000
75-AK642, Initial Issue, dated November 30, 2020, to provide
instructions for MAS deactivation, and consequently, EASA published
EASA AD 2021-0009, dated January 8, 2021, specifying deactivation of
the MAS control valves. Despite this, a significantly worn HPT triple
seal under flight conditions, while MAS was activated prior to the
above action, could have reduced the safety of flight.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require accomplishing the actions
specified in EASA AD 2022-0241 described previously, except for any
differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0660.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received a comment from one commenter, The Boeing Company
(Boeing). Boeing supported the NPRM without change.

Conclusion

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data,
considered the comment received, and determined that air safety
requires adopting the AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for
minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2022-0241. EASA AD 2022-0241 specifies
procedures for inspecting the HPT triple seal for excessive wear and,
depending on the results of the inspection, replacing the HPT triple
seal and the IPT disk. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 4 engines installed on
airplanes 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspect HPT triple seal.............  1 work-hour x $85 per                $0              $85             $340
                                       hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace HPT triple seal and IPT disk.........  4 work-hours x $85 per hour =          $737,832         $738,172
                                                $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:

2023-12-16 Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG: Amendment 39-22474;
Docket No. FAA-2023-0660; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01561-E.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 15, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to certain Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
(RRD) Model Trent 1000-AE3, Trent 1000-CE3, Trent 1000-D3, Trent
1000-G3, Trent 1000-H3, Trent 1000-J3, Trent 1000-K3, Trent 1000-L3,
Trent 1000-M3, Trent 1000-N3, Trent 1000-P3, Trent 1000-Q3, and
Trent 1000-R3 engines, as identified in European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0241, dated December 7, 2022 (EASA AD
2022-0241).

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7240, Turbine Engine
Combustion Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of excessive wear on the inner
seal fins of certain high-pressure turbine (HPT) triple seals. The
FAA is issuing this AD to prevent excessive wear on the inner seal
fins of certain HPT triple seals. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could lead to a temperature increase at the intermediate-
pressure turbine (IPT) disk rim, possibly resulting in IPT disk
failure and high energy debris release, with consequent damage to
the airplane and reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD:
Perform all required actions within the compliance times specified
in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2022-0241.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0241

    (1) Where EASA AD 2022-0241 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) This AD does not adopt the Remarks paragraph of EASA AD
2022-0241.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although EASA AD 2022-0241 specifies to submit inspection
results to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that
requirement.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety 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 branch office, send it to
the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD
and email 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) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sungmo Cho, Aviation
Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198;
phone:<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 the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency AD 2022-0241, dated
December 7, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2022-0241, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
[email protected]; website: easa.europa.eu. You may find this
material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This
material may be found in the AD docket at regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2023-0660.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on June 13, 2023.
Michael Linegang,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-14596 Filed 7-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, DC 20460

			OFFICE OF  PREVENTION, PESTICIDES,  AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

Memorandum									02/28/08

Subject:	Amended Product Chemistry of Benzene, 1-((diiodomethyl)sulfonyl)-4-methyl or Diiodomethyl p-tolyl sulfone for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED). DP 348167

From:		A. Najm Shamim, Ph.D., Chemist

		Regulatory Management Branch II

		Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

To:		Bill Hazel, Risk Assessor for Diiodomethyl p-tolyl sulfone RED

		Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch

		Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

		Jonathan Chen, Ph.D., Toxicologist for Diiodomethyl p-tolyl sulfone RED

		Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch

		Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

				And

		Kathryn Jakob,

		CRM for Diiodomethyl p-tolyl sulfone RED

		Regulatory Management Branch II

		Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

Thru:		Mark Hartman Chief

		Regulatory Management Branch II

		Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

PRODUCT CHEMISTRY OF DIIODOMETHYL P-TOYL SULFONE

CAS#:			20018-09-1

Chemical Name:	Benzene, 1-((diiodomethyl)sulfonyl)-4-methyl

Common Name: 	Diiodomethyl p-tolyl sulfone

Chemical Formula:	C8H8 I2 O2S

Mol. Wt:		422.01

Molecular Structure:

Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Diiodomethyl p-tolyl sulfone

Color:			Tan

Physical State:		Solid /Powder Solid at room temperature1

Odor:			Not tested1

MP:			149-152 oC 1

BP:			Decomposes before boiling.1,

Density:	  		1.08 g/mL 1

Vapor Pressure:		5.2 x 10-8  mm Hg at 25 o C1

Solubility:			10 mg/L 1   at 25 o C   in deionized water

Henry Law Constant:	 6.03x 10-7  atm-m3 /mole2

Persistence in Air:		 23.4 Hours2

Dissociation Constant:	 No data available

Log KOW :			 2.66 1,2

pH:			 4.3 1

Stability:			Stable at room temperature1  and stable at 54±2 o  C1 			 for two weeks

Redox Potentials: 		Not oxidizing1

Flammability:		60 o C 1

17	     Explodability:		Not explosive 1

18.	      Miscibility:		Not determined

19	    Corrosion Characteristics: No data available

20	    Dielectric Breakdown Voltage: No data available.

21	    Log KOC :			2.3

22	    UV-visible spectra: 	Two absorption peaks: 200 and 233-234 nm; the

spectra were run from 200-800 nm range

23.       Storage Stability:	AMICAL 48 is stable for 8 years at ambient temperature,

stable for 36 months at 30o C and for 6 months at 40 o C. See the comments below

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1	MRID 47234004  Sudworth, J. (2007) Physical Chemical Determination for BPD Dossier on AMICAL 48,  Intertek ASG; Submitted by The Dow Chemical Company

2	MRID Not assigned.  Sinning, D, 2003:  Physical Chemical Characteristics of AMICAL 48: Melting Point, Boiling Point, Water Solubility and Vapor Pressure. Sponsor Labs: Case Labs;  Submitted by the Dow Chemical Company

3.	 4590901 Gonsior, S et al., (2002):  Estimating Soil Adsoprtion Coefficient Koc for Series of Biocides by HPLC Using OECD Method 121: Submitted by Dow Chemical Company

4.	47234003 Lopez, A. (2007) Determination of UV-Visible  Absorption  Characteristics of AMICAL 48 Antifungal Agent; Performing Labs: PTRL West, Inc. Hercules, CA: 94547; Data were generated by OECD guidelines 101 Lab Study ID#: PTRL 1654W

AMICAL™ 48: Summary of Storage Stability Studies; Submitted by The Dow Chemical Company.

6.           421772-02	Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient of AMICAL™ 48, 1991, by Willard Laster; Performing Lab: ABC Laboratories, Inc., MO: 65205

7               472340-04	Physical-Chemical Determination for BPD dossier on Amical 48 Antimicrobial by J. Sudworth, 2007; Performing Labs: Intertek ASG, Blackely, Manchester, England: M9 8ZS.  The data were generated based on OECD Guidelines; Study #: 1305291

8                 472340-03	Determination of UV-Visible Absorption Characteristics

of AMICAL 48 Antifungal Agent by Andrea Lopez, 2007;

Performing Labs: PTRL West, Inc. Hercules, CA: 94547;

Data were generated by OECD guidelines 101 Lab Study

ID#: PTRL 1654W

9                  42054401	Quinn, L, 1991: AMICAL 48, Product Chemistry.

Submitted by ANGUS Chemical

10.                NO MRID #  	Sinning, D, 2003:  Physical Chemical Characteristics of

AMICAL 48: Melting Point, Boiling Point, Water

Solubility and Vapor Pressure. Sponsor Labs: Case Labs;

Submitted by the Dow Chemical Company

11                     4590901 	Gonsior, S et al., 2002:  Estimating Soil Adsorption Coefficient Koc for Series of Biocides by HPLC Using OECD Method 121: Submitted by Dow Chemical Company

The Dow Chemical Company in November 2007 provided the following comments and information regarding the storage stability of Diiodomethyl p-tolyl sulfone.

Registrants over a period of time (1982 through 1994) had asked various Laboratories琠潣摮捵⁴慶楲瑥⁹景猠慴楢楬祴猠畴楤 獥⠠瑳牯条瑳扡汩瑩⁹湩汣摵摥⸩

ANGUS Chemical Co. in 1990 reported: “AMICAL™ 48 and AMICAL 50 were stored on laboratory shelf for eight years and an HPLC analysis after eight years showed no significant breakdown for AMICAL™ 48 or AMICAL 50.”

ú

E

F

G

H

I

J

s

ž

°

·

×

!

L

n

‘

«

Í

ï

ð

ñ

ò

ó

ô

õ

ö

÷

ø

ù

ú

I

J

J

‘

Ÿ

Ù

␃愁ĤЀ×

Ø

ë

ì

ó

û

ü

þ

ÿ

„@

„Ð^„@

„@

„Àô^„@

„@

„Àô^„@

̀Abbott Laboratories in 1982 reported: “AMICAL™ 48 was added to acidic water (no pH value is mentioned) and a titration method showed that AMICAL48 is stable for 16 hours at 40 o C. AMCIAL™ 48 is used for leather processing at 40 o C and acidic conditions in water. The acidity in water was generated by adding dilute sulfuric acid and dilute formic acid (Lab Project #: 35-208-62)

Thompson Research Associates in 1994 reported; “A DSC Isotherm method was used to see find the stability at higher temperature. DSC isotherm curve changes indicated that AMICAL™ 48 begin to breakdown at 192 o C after ten minutes.”

Abbott Laboratories in 1988 reported: “ AMICAL™ 48 and other AMICAL products were stable for 36 months at 30 o C  and  stable for 6 months at 40 o C. the analysis was conducted by HPLC technique

 PAGE

  PAGE  4  of   NUMPAGES  5


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 14 (Monday, January 23, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4072-4073]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01169]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2012-0067]

Petition for Extension of Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on November 30, 2022, the
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPBX), which owns and operates
Caltrain, petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an
extension of a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the
Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 215
(Railroad Freight Car Safety

Standards). The relevant FRA Docket Number is FRA-2012-0067.
    Specifically, JPBX requested to extend its special approval
pursuant to 49 CFR 215.203, Restricted cars, for 2 flat-straight deck
cars, JPBX 711 and JPBX 712, that are more than 50 years from the date
of original construction. JPBX also requests to extend its existing
relief from 49 CFR 215.303, Stenciling of restricted cars. JPBX seeks
to continue use of the cars to transport decorations during its annual
Holiday Train event. In support of its request, JPBX states that the
cars have been inspected and determined to be safe for continued
operation and they will not be interchanged.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Communications received by March 24, 2023 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of
regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-01169 Filed 1-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 67 (Monday, April 8, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13846-13848]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06752]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0241; Airspace Docket No. 18-AEA-18]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-260 and V-290;
Eastern United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify VHF Omni-Directional Range
(VOR) Federal airways V-260 and V-290, in the eastern United States.
The modifications are needed due to the planned decommissioning of the
Rainelle, WV, VOR that provides navigation guidance for portions of the
routes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1
(800) 647-5527 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-
2019-0241; Airspace Docket No. 18-AEA-18 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11C at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group,
Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would modify the VOR Federal airway structure in the
eastern United States to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,

environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2019-0241; Airspace Docket No. 18-AEA-18 and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2019-0241; Airspace Docket No. 18-AEA-18''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRM's

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal
Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park,
GA, 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective
September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.11C
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend VOR Federal airways V-260 and V-
290 to remove segments linked to the Rainelle, WV, VOR, which is
planned to be decommissioned. The proposed route changes are described
below.
    V-260: V-260 currently extends between the Charleston, WV, VOR/DME,
and the Cofield, NC, VORTAC. The proposed change would remove the
segments between the Charleston, WV, VOR/DME, and the Roanoke, VA, VOR/
DME. The amended route would extend between the Roanoke, VA, VOR/DME
and the Cofield, NC, VORTAC as currently charted.
    V-290: V-290 currently consists of two parts. The first part
extends between the Rainelle, WV, VOR, and the Flat Rock, VA, VORTAC.
Then there is a gap in the route followed by the second part that
extends between the Tar River, NC, VORTAC, and the intersection of
radials from the Tar River, NC, VORTAC and the New Bern, NC, VOR/DME
(depicted on aeronautical charts as the PUNGO, NC, navigation fix). At
the PUNGO fix, V-290 joins existing area navigation route T-243. The
proposed change would remove the portion of V-290 between the Rainelle,
WV, VOR, and the Montebello, VA, VOR/DME. The amended route would
therefore extend, in two parts, between the Montebello, VA, VOR/DME,
and the Flat Rock, VA, VORTAC; and between the Tar River, NC, VORTAC,
and the intersection of radials from the Tar River VORTAC and the New
Bern VOR/DME, as currently charted.
    The full amended route descriptions are listed in the ``The
Proposed Amendment'' section, below.
    Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of
FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV
routes listed in this document would be subsequently published in the
Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13,
2018, and effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-260 [Amended]

From Roanoke, VA; Lynchburg, VA; Flat Rock, VA; Richmond, VA;
Hopewell, VA; Franklin, VA; to Cofield, NC.

V-290 [Amended]

From Montebello, VA; to Flat Rock, VA. From Tar River, NC; to INT
Tar River 109[deg] radial and New Bern, NC, 042[deg] radial
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 1, 2019.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2019-06752 Filed 4-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


*
2
,997,000
47.8
3
,323,000
33.4
1
,255,000
28.2
1
,036,000
38.3
1986
9,690,000
41.
0
*
*
*
*
3
,223,000
51.1
3
,672,000
36.4
1
,622,000
36.3
1
,173,000
42.6
1987
9,565,000
40.
1
*
*
*
*
3
,323,000
52.5
3
,522,000
34.5
1
,633,000
36.3
1
,087,000
38.6
1988
9,934,000
41.
2
*
*
*
*
3
,171,000
49.9
3
,989,000
38.7
1
,587,000
34.8
1
,188,000
41.4
1989
11,621,000
47.
7
*
*
*
*
3
,901,000
61.0
4
,302,000
41.3
1
,914,000
41.5
1
,504,000
51.5
1990
10,311,000
41.
9
*
*
*
*
3
,725,000
57.6
3
,703,000
35.2
1
,800,000
38.6
1
,082,000
36.3
1991
11,735,000
47.
2
*
*
*
*
4
,094,000
62.5
4
,594,000
43.4
1
,921,000
40.7
1
,126,000
37.2
1992
12,375,000
49.
2
*
*
*
*
4
,218,000
63.4
4
,748,000
44.9
2
,183,000
45.0
1
,226,000
39.8
1993
13,074,000
51.
4
*
*
*
*
4
,830,000
71.6
4
,495,000
42.5
2
,242,000
45.0
1
,506,000
48.2
1994
14,562,000
56.
1
*
*
*
*
4
,837,000
69.1
5
,598,000
51.7
2
,561,000
50.8
1
,566,000
50.5
1995
14,878,000
56.
8
*
*
*
*
5
,294,000
74.9
5
,577,000
51.6
2
,754,000
53.3
1
,253,000
39.8
1996
14,596,000
55.
2
*
*
*
*
4
,429,000
62.0
6
,141,000
56.9
2
,581,000
48.6
1
,445,000
45.5
2001
20,280,603
73.
4
1
,127,711
57.
1
5
,192,266
98.
1
6
,319,977
87.0
7
,796,024
71.9
4
,207,483
67.3
1
,957,119
59.6
2002
20,025,716
71.
8
1
,180,664
59.
5
4
,882,214
91.
9
6
,062,878
83.1
7
,437,526
68.8
4
,591,985
71.0
1
,933,327
58.5
2003
19,836,001
69.
4
1
,177,472
59.
3
5
,035,963
94.
8
6
,213,435
85.1
6
,972,303
63.1
4
,678,034
68.5
1
,972,229
57.6
2004
20,544,836
71.
3
1
,119,656
56.
0
5
,067,050
95.
5
6
,186,706
84.7
7
,058,327
63.9
4
,871,010
69.4
2
,428,793
70.2
CALCULATIONS PERFORMED BY THE EPIDEMIOLOGY AND STATISTICS UNIT
NOTES:
* Data for these age groups were not calculated.
(1) Due to rounding, numbers across may not sum up to totals.
(2) With the revision of the National Health Interview Survey in 1997, the question "During the past 12 months, did anyone in the family have
asthma?" was eliminated and was replaced with two questions: "Have you ever been told by a doctor or other health professional that you had
asthma?" (Table 6) and "During the past 12 months, have you had an episode of asthma or asthma attack?" (Table 10). Realizing the information
gap resulting with the revised questions, "Do you still have asthma?" was added in 2001- reinstating a measure of current prevalence. However,
data between 1982 and 1996 should not be compared to 2001-2004 estimates.
SOURCE: NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS, NATIONAL HEALTH INTERVIEW SURVEY, 1982-1996, 2001-2004
TABLE 7: ASTHMA - NUMBER OF CONDITIONS AND PREVALENCE RATE PER 1,000 PERSONS BY AGE 1982-1996,
<18
1
8-44
45
-64
65+
ALL AGES
UNDER 5
5
-
1
7

TABLE 8: ASTHMA- NUMBER OF CONDITIONS AND PREVALENCE RATE PER 1,000 PERSONS BY SEX,
19
82
-199
6, 2001-2004 (CURRENT PREVALENCE)
1
YEAR
NUMBER
RATE
NUMBER
RATE
NUMBER
RATE
NUMBER
RATE
NUMBER
RATE
NUMBER
RATE
1982
3
,994,000
36.5
**** 3,906,000
33
.
2
*
*
*
*
1983
3
,818,000
34.5
**** 4,968,000
41
.
9
*
*
*
*
1984
3
,924,000
35.1
**** 4,464,000
37
.
3
*
*
*
*
1985
3
,864,000
34.2
**** 4,748,000
39
.
3
*
*
*
*
1986
4
,670,000
40.8
**** 5,019,000
41
.
1
*
*
*
*
1987
4
,609,000
39.9
**** 4,956,000
40
.
3
*
*
*
*
1988
4
,650,000
39.9
**** 5,285,000
42
.
5
*
*
*
*
1989
5
,593,000
47.4
**** 6,028,000
48
.
0
*
*
*
*
1990
4
,741,000
39.7
**** 5,570,000
44
.
0
*
*
*
*
1991
5
,724,000
47.4
**** 6,011,000
47
.
0
*
*
*
*
1992
5
,516,000
45.1
**** 6,859,000
53
.
1
*
*
*
*
1993
5
,946,000
48.1
**** 7,127,000
54
.
6
*
*
*
*
1994
6
,542,000
51.7
**** 8,019,000
60
.
2
*
*
*
*
1995
6
,687,000
52.4
**** 8,190,000
61
.
0
*
*
*
*
1996
5
,751,000
44.4
**** 8,845,000
65
.
3
*
*
*
*
2001
8
,579,722
63.6
3
,679,050
9
9
.
0
4,900,672
50.1
1
1
,700,881
82
.
6
2


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 92 (Thursday, May 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27744-27745]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11578]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Eighth Meeting--RTCA Special Committee 217: Joint With EUROCAE
WG-44 Terrain and Airport Mapping Databases

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 217: Joint with EUROCAE WG-44
Terrain and Airport Mapping Databases.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 217: Joint with EUROCAE WG-44 Terrain
and Airport Mapping Databases.

DATES: The meeting will be held June 6-10, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at NASA Ames Research Center,
Moffett Field, Mountain View, CA 94043. For more information contact
John Kasten at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(303) 328-4535 (office), (303)
260-9652 (mobile) or alternate contact Tom Evans at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(757) 864-2499 (office).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036-5133; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(202) 833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a RTCA Special Committee 217: Joint with EUROCAE
WG-44 Terrain and Airport Mapping Databases meeting. The agenda will
include:

June 6, 2011

 Opening Plenary Session
 Chairman's remarks and Introductions
 Housekeeping
 Approve minutes from previous meeting
 TOR update
 Review and Approve Meeting Agenda
 Schedule for this week
 FRAC
 Comment Resolution of Documents: Revised DO-272B and DO-291A

June 7-8, 2011

 Continue FRAC
 Comment Resolution of Documents: Revised DO-272B and DO-291A

June 9, 2011

 Consider for Approval Revised DO-272B and Revised DO-291A
 Consider/Approve FRAC Drafts for PMC Consideration--Revised
DO-272B, User Requirements for Aerodrome Mapping Information and
Revised DO-291A, Interchange Standards for Terrain, Obstacle, and
Aerodrome Mapping Data. Revised RTCA DO272B is maintained as RTCA Paper
No. 077-11/SC217-023, Revised RTCA DO/291A is maintained as RTCA Paper
No. 078-11/SC217-024.
 Working Group Sessions--Work Items for DO-276
 Work Items for DO-XXX, ASRN V&V Document
 Editorial Working Group Session to clean documents as a result
of FRAC of Revised DO-272B and Revised DO-291A

June 10, 2011

 Road Map for DO-272 and DO-291
 Assignment and Review of Future Work
 Other Business
 Date and Place of Next Meeting
 Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 6, 2011.
Robert L. Bostiga,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2011-11578 Filed 5-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 145 (Friday, July 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44298-44299]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18355]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67484; File Number SR-FINRA-2012-036]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change Regarding the Implementation Date for Amendments
to NASD Rules 1012 and 1017 in SR-FINRA-2012-018

July 23, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, notice is hereby given that on
July 20, 2012, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has
designated the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-
controversial'' rule change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under
the Act, which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this
filing by the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

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

    FINRA is proposing a rule change to establish August 27, 2012 as
the new implementation date for amendments to NASD Rules 1012 and 1017
in SR-FINRA-2012-018 approved by the Commission on May 31, 2012.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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, Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    On May 31, 2012, the SEC approved amendments to NASD Rules 1012
(General Provisions) and 1017 (Application for Approval of Change in
Ownership, Control, or Business Operations) to adopt a new standardized
electronic form, Form CMA, to be used by all continuing membership
applicants as part of their continuing membership applications. On July
5, 2012, FINRA published Regulatory Notice 12-33 announcing that,
beginning on July 23, 2012, continuing membership applicants would need
to submit the new electronic Form CMA as part of their continuing
membership applications. FINRA is filing the proposed rule change to
establish August 27, 2012 as the new implementation date for the
amendments to NASD Rules 1012 and 1017 requiring continuing membership
applicants to use the new Form CMA and resolve a discrepancy between
the proposed implementation date set forth in the Form 19b-4 for SR-
FINRA-2012-018 and the Notice of Filing of SR-FINRA-2012-018 in the
Federal Register. As of July 23, 2012, continuing membership applicants
will have the option to use the Form CMA to submit their continuing
membership applications, but use of the Form CMA will not become
mandatory until August 27, 2012.
    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, which requires, among other
things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that establishing an implementation
date of August 27, 2012 will provide firms with additional time to
become familiar with the Form CMA.

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the 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) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) 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.

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-FINRA-2012-036 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2012-036. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2012-036 and should be
submitted on or before August 17, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-18355 Filed 7-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 221 (Monday, November 17, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 68370]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27154]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 24, 30, 70, 90, and 188

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0919]
RIN 1625-AB83

Lifesaving Devices--Uninspected Commercial Barges and Sailing
Vessels

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard published a final rule in the Federal Register
on September 10, 2014, requiring the use of wearable personal flotation
devices for individuals on board uninspected non-passenger commercial
barges and sailing vessels. In the final rule, the Coast Guard amended
several tables to reflect this requirement. However, in a subsequent
final rule regarding non-substantive changes, the Coast Guard removed
the same tables in an effort to consolidate the regulations by
referencing to a common table instead. The original final rule's
amendatory instructions can no longer be amended as the tables were
removed prior to the original final rule's effective date by the
subsequent effective final rule. This correction removes the amendatory
instructions in the original final rule for the affected tables.

DATES: This correction is effective on November 17, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
correction, call or email Paul Crissy, Office of Standards Evaluation
and Development, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing material on
the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To view the original final rule document,
visit http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/FR-2014-09-10/2014-21541.

Background

    The Coast Guard published a final rule in the Federal Register of
September 10, 2014, (79 FR 53621), amending Tables 2.01-7(a), 24.05-
1(a), 30.01-5(d), 70.05-1(a), 90.05-1(a), and 188.05-1(a). The Coast
Guard published a second final rule in the Federal Register of
September 29, 2014, (79 FR 58270), removing Tables 24.05-1(a), 30.01-
5(d), 70.05-1(a), 90.05-1(a), and 188.05-1(a), making a reference back
to Table 2.01-7(a) instead. This correction removes the amendatory
instructions for Tables 24.05-1(a), 30.01-5(d), 70.05-1(a), 90.05-1(a),
and 188.05-1(a) published on September 10, 2014.

Need for Correction

    The Coast Guard published two final rules in the Federal Register
that created the need for this correction. The Coast Guard amended
Tables 2.01-7(a), 24.05-1(a), 30.01-5(d), 70.05-1(a), 90.05-1(a), and
188.05-1(a) on September 10, 2014, (79 FR 53621), which became
effective on October 10, 2014. However, subsequently, in the Federal
Register of September 29, 2014, (79 FR 58270), the Coast Guard removed
Tables 24.05-1(a), 30.01-5(d), 70.05-1(a), 90.05-1(a), and 188.05-1(a),
making reference instead to Table 2.01-7(a), which became effective on
September 29, 2014. As a result of the effective dates, the removal of
Tables 24.05-1(a), 30.01-5(d), 70.05-1(a), 90.05-1(a), and 188.05-1(a)
occurred prior to the amendment of the same tables. As such, the Office
of Federal Register could not make the amendments to the removed tables
and instead placed an editorial note in the CFR noting this
discrepancy. This correction removes the amendatory instructions
published in the final rule of September 10, 2014, (79 FR 53621), so
that the editorial note to the CFR can be removed.
    In FR Doc. 2014-21541, published on September 10, 2014, (79 FR
53621), make the following corrections:

Sec.  24.05-1  [Corrected]

    1. On page 53630, in the third column, remove amendatory
instruction 4. and the amendment to Sec.  24.05-1.

Sec.  30.01-5  [Corrected]

    2. On page 53631, in the second column, remove amendatory
instruction 11. and the amendment to Sec.  30.01-5.

Sec.  70.05-1  [Corrected]

    3. On page 53631, in the second column, remove amendatory
instruction 13. and the amendment to Sec.  70.05-1.

Sec.  90.05-1  [Corrected]

    4. On page 53631, in the second column, remove amendatory
instruction 15. and the amendment to Sec.  90.05-1.

Sec.  188.05-1  [Corrected]

    5. On page 53631, in the third column, remove amendatory
instruction 17. and the amendment to Sec.  188.05-1.

    Dated: November 12, 2014.
Katia Cervoni,
Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2014-27154 Filed 11-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Springsteen B., EERGC Inc., personal communication, July 2001 Phone Call between Bruce Springsteen of EERGC and Cynthia Manson of Industrial Economics.

  Bruce indicated that the heat input rate of each boiler facility could be used to calculate how much of another fuel ( e. g., natural gas or coal) they would need to burn if they decided to stop using hazardous waste as a fuel.

  Bruce stated that there are some facilities that EERGC does not know the permitted hazardous waste feed rate of.

  Bruce indicated that the typical heating value of waste at phase 2 systems is approximately 12,000 to 15,000 Btu/ lb.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 242 (Monday, December 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74712-74715]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30273]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68404; File No. SR-FINRA-2012-041]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Customer and Industry Codes of Arbitration Procedure Relating to
Subpoenas and to Arbitrator Authority To Direct the Appearance of
Associated Person Witnesses and the Production of Documents Without
Subpoenas

December 11, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On August 24, 2012, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \1\ and
Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change amending the Customer
and Industry Codes of Arbitration Procedure (collectively, the
``Codes'') (1) to provide that when FINRA member firms and/or employees
or associated persons of FINRA members who are parties to an
arbitration (collectively, ``Member Parties'') seek the appearance of
witnesses by, or the production of documents from, FINRA members (and
individuals associated with the member) who are not parties to the
arbitration (collectively, ``Non-Party Members''), FINRA arbitrators
shall (unless circumstances dictate otherwise) issue orders for the
appearance of witnesses or the production of documents, instead of
issuing subpoenas; (2) to add procedures for any non-party (Non-Party
Member or otherwise) receiving a subpoena to object to the subpoena;
(3) to provide that if an arbitrator issues a subpoena to a Non-Party
Member at the request of a Member Party, the Member Party making the
request is (unless the panel

directs otherwise) responsible for paying the reasonable costs of the
appearance of witnesses by or the production of documents from the Non-
Party Member; (4) to add procedures for any party to an arbitration to
file a motion requesting arbitrators issue an order for the appearance
of any employee or associated person of a FINRA member (collectively,
``Associated Persons'') or the production of documents from such
Associated Persons or members; (5) to add procedures for any party to
an arbitration receiving a motion for an order and draft order to
object to the order; (6) to add procedures for how the party to the
arbitration that requested the order must serve the order (if issued);
(7) to add procedures for any Non-Party Member receiving an order to
object to the order; and (8) to add procedures for how parties to an
arbitration must share documents received in response to an order
issued to a Non-Party Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on September 13, 2012.\3\ The Commission received three
comment letters on the proposed rule change from: the Securities
Arbitration Clinic at St. John's University School of Law \4\; the
Investor Rights Clinic at Pace Law School \5\; and the Public Investors
Arbitration Bar Association (``PIABA'').\6\ The text of the proposed
rule change is available on FINRA's Web site at http://www.finra.org,
at the principal office of FINRA, on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 67803 (Sept. 7, 2012), 77 FR
56694 (Sept. 13, 2012), (``Notice''). The comment period closed on
October 4, 2012.
    \4\ See Letter from Shane Malone and others, Securities
Arbitration Clinic, St. John's University School of Law, dated
September 25, 2012 (the ``St. John's Letter'').
    \5\ See Letter from Jill I. Gross and others, Investor Rights
Clinic, Pace Law School, dated October 4, 2012 (the ``Pace
Letter'').
    \6\ See Letter from Ryan K. Bakhtiari, PIABA, dated October 4,
2012 (the ``PIABA Letter''). See also infra note 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This order approves the proposed rule change.

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

A. Subpoena Rules

    Currently, the Codes authorize arbitrators to issue subpoenas for
the production of documents or the appearance of witnesses.\7\ Rules
12512 and 13512 of the Codes (the ``Subpoena Rules'') set forth
procedures for any party (Member Party or non-member) to an arbitration
to make a motion for a subpoena. Specifically, the requesting party
must file a written motion with FINRA's Director of Arbitration
(``Director'') (with an additional copy for the arbitrator) requesting
that an arbitrator issue a subpoena to another party to the arbitration
or to a non-party. The motion must include a draft subpoena and the
requesting party must serve the motion and draft subpoena on each other
party to the arbitration at the same time and in the same manner as on
the Director. The requesting party, however, may not serve the motion
or draft subpoena on a non-party.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See FINRA Rules 12512(a) and 13512(a).
    \8\ See FINRA Rules 12512(b) and 13512(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Subpoena Rules also detail how a party to an arbitration
receiving a motion and draft subpoena may object to the scope or
propriety of the subpoena; how the requesting party may reply to
another party's objection; and how the arbitrator rules on the issuance
and scope of the subpoena.\9\ If the arbitrator issues a subpoena,
however, the party that requested the subpoena must serve the subpoena
at the same time and in the same manner on all other parties to the
arbitration and, if applicable, on any non-party receiving the
subpoena.\10\ Finally, the Subpoena Rules describe how parties to an
arbitration must share any documents they receive in response to a
subpoena service on a non-party.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See FINRA Rules 12512(c) and 13512(c).
    \10\ See FINRA Rules 12512(d) and 13512(d).
    \11\ See FINRA Rules 12512(e) and 13512(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Subpoena Rules do not currently address, however, who bears the
costs of production under a subpoena issued to either a party to an
arbitration or a non-party. In the Notice, FINRA states that in
practice arbitrators resolve disputes between parties to an
arbitration, as well as between parties and non-parties, relating to
costs associated with complying with a subpoena. In addition, the
Subpoena Rules do not currently provide a means for non-parties to
object to subpoenas served upon them. FINRA states that in practice,
however, FINRA permits non-parties to file objections to subpoenas.
And, according to FINRA, in practice the objections may include a
request for the arbitrators to determine who pays the costs of
production.
    FINRA filed this proposed rule change, in part, to codify these
existing practices. FINRA proposes new Rules 12512(e) and 13512(e) to
the Codes to provide a mechanism for non-parties to object to a
subpoena that an arbitrator issues to them. Under the new provisions,
if a non-party receiving a subpoena objects to the scope or propriety
of the subpoena, the non-party may, within ten (10) calendar days of
service of the subpoena, file written objections with the Director. The
Director shall forward a copy of the written objections to the
arbitrator and all the parties to the arbitration (including the
requesting party). The party that requested the subpoena may respond to
the objections within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the
objections. After considering all objections, the arbitrator
responsible for issuing the subpoena shall rule promptly on the
objections. FINRA stated in its Notice that the proposed amendments
would codify FINRA's current practice relating to objections.
    In addition, the proposed rule change would add new Rules 12512(g)
and 13512(g) to the Codes to address costs when a Member Party requests
a subpoena directed to a Non-Party Member. Specifically, if the
arbitrators issue a subpoena to a Non-Party Member, the Member Party
that requested the subpoena shall pay the reasonable appearance and/or
production costs related to the Non-Party Member's compliance with
subpoena, unless the panel directs otherwise. If a dispute arises
regarding who should pay the appearance and/or production costs and
whether a stated amount is reasonable, the proposed rule change would
allow arbitrators to determine the reasonable costs and to assess
responsibility for paying them. FINRA believes that the amendments
would codify the current practice relating to how FINRA handles such
disputes. FINRA also believes that the responsibility of a party to an
arbitration to reimburse a non-party for its appearance and/or
production costs should be the same regardless of whether the non-party
is responding to a subpoena or an order requested by the party; to this
end, new Rules 12512(g) and 13512(g) would also eliminate the current
disparity between how the Subpoena Rules and the Order Rules (defined
below), which expressly address who bears the costs of production
relating to compliance with an order, treat such costs.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See FINRA Rules 12513(b) and 13513(b) (stating that unless
the panel directs otherwise, the party to the arbitration requesting
the order for the appearance of witnesses by or the production of
documents from non-parties under this rule shall (unless the panel
directs otherwise) pay the reasonable costs related to the
appearance of witnesses or the production of documents done in
response to such order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Order Rules

    Rules 12513 and 13513 of the Codes (the ``Order Rules'') also
currently

authorize arbitrators to order the appearance of any Associated Persons
or the production of documents in the possession or control of an
Associated Person or a FINRA member (including both parties to an
arbitration and non-parties) without using the subpoena process.\13\ In
fact, as stated in the Notice, FINRA believes that parties to an
arbitration would be better served by requesting an arbitrator order
instead of a subpoena because orders offer a more efficient mechanism
for obtaining the appearance of witnesses and production of documents
from FINRA members and/or their Associated Persons (including both
parties to an arbitration and non-parties). For instance, FINRA states
in the Notice that while the Codes provide an enforcement mechanism for
both subpoenas and arbitrator orders,\14\ typically, once an arbitrator
issues a subpoena in a dispute, non-compliance is handled away from the
arbitration forum through the courts. Conversely, FINRA staff and the
arbitrators who are familiar with the case handle requests for
arbitrator orders. Consequently, FINRA believes that arbitrator orders
are cost effective for forum users because parties to the arbitration
and non-parties would avoid the costs and risks associated with court
proceedings. Moreover, FINRA does not believe that using arbitration
orders instead of subpoenas in arbitration proceedings would adversely
impact the ability of parties to an arbitration to obtain documents and
witnesses at the forum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See FINRA Rules 12513(a) and 13513(a).
    \14\ IM-12000 states that it may be deemed conduct inconsistent
with just and equitable principles of trade and a violation of Rule
2010 for a member or a person associated with a member to fail to
appear or to produce any document in his possession or control as
directed pursuant to provisions of the Code (see Customer Code of
Arbitration Procedure Part I--Interpretative Material, Definitions,
Organization and Authority).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To this end, FINRA proposed adding new Rules 12512(a)(2) and
13512(a)(2) to the Subpoena Rules to provide that unless circumstances
dictate the need for a subpoena,\15\ arbitrators shall not issue
subpoenas to Non-Party Members at the request of Member Parties.
Specifically, the proposal states that if the arbitrators determine
that the request for the appearance of witnesses or the production of
documents should be granted, then the arbitrators should order the
appearance of such persons or the production of documents from such
Non-Party Member under the Order Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For example, an arbitrator might issue a subpoena if a firm
failed to produce documents pursuant to an arbitrator order, or if a
former associated person of a FINRA member has left the industry and
the arbitrator believes that an arbitrator order would not be
effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the proposed rules, FINRA also intends to standardize its
procedures relating to the use of orders and subpoenas in arbitration
by adding to the Order Rules procedures substantially similar to those
in the Subpoena Rules. In particular, the proposed rule would add Rules
12513(b) and 13513(b), setting forth procedures for any party to an
arbitration to make a motion for an order for the appearance of
Associated Persons (including both parties to the arbitration and non-
parties) or the production of documents in the possession or control of
such Associated Persons of FINRA members (including both parties to the
arbitration and non-parties). Specifically, the requesting party must
file a written motion with the Director (with an additional copy for
the arbitrator) requesting that an arbitrator issue the order. The
motion must include a draft order and the requesting party must serve
the motion and draft order on each other party to the arbitration at
the same time and in the same manner as on the Director. The requesting
party, however, may not serve the motion or draft order on a Non-Party
Member. These proposed procedures are substantially similar to those
procedures used by a party to an arbitration to make a motion for a
subpoena.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See FINRA Rules 12512(b) and 13512(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would add other provisions substantially similar
to certain Subpoena Rules. Specifically, new Rules 12513(c) and
13513(c) would provide a mechanism for a party to an arbitration
receiving a motion and draft order to object to the scope or propriety
of the order, as well as a mechanism for the requesting party to reply
to another party's objection. Under the new provisions, if party
receiving a motion and draft order objects to the scope or propriety of
the order, the party shall, within ten (10) calendar days of service of
the motion, file written objections with the Director (with an
additional copy for the arbitrator) and serve copies on all other
parties to the arbitration at the same time and in the same manner as
on the Director. The party that requested the order may respond to the
objections within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the objections.
After considering all objections, the arbitrator responsible for
deciding discovery-related motions shall rule promptly on the issuance
and scope of the order. Again, this proposal is substantially similar
to the related provisions in the Subpoena Rules detailing how a party
to an arbitration receiving a motion and draft subpoena may object to
the scope or propriety of the subpoena; how the requesting party may
reply to another party's objection; and how the arbitrator rules on the
issuance and scope of the subpoena.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, under proposed new Rules 12513(d) and 12513(d), if an
arbitrator ultimately issues the requested order, the requesting party
must serve the order at the same time and in the same manner on all
other parties to the arbitration and, if applicable, on any Non-Party
Member receiving the order. These proposed new rules also parallel the
related rules in the Subpoena Rules.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the proposed rules would add new Rules 12513(e) and
13513(e) to provide a mechanism for Non-Party Members to object to an
order that an arbitrator issues to them. Under the new provisions, if a
Non-Party Member receiving an order objects to the scope or propriety
of the order, the Non-Party Member may, within ten (10) calendar days
of service of the order, file written objections with the Director. The
Director shall forward a copy of the written objections to the
arbitrator and all the parties to the arbitration (including the
requesting party). The party that requested the order may respond to
the objections within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the
objections. After considering all objections, the arbitrator
responsible for issuing the order shall rule promptly on the
objections. These proposed new rules are substantially similar to the
new rules that that proposal also proposes adding to the Subpoena
Rules. This would codify FINRA's current practice relating to
objections.
    Finally, the proposed rule change would add new Rules 12513(f) and
13513(f), describing how parties to an arbitration must share any
documents they receive in response to an order served on a non-party
(i.e., Non-Party Members). Specifically, under the new rules any party
to an arbitration receiving documents in response to an order served on
a Non-Party Member shall provide notice to all other parties within
five (5) days of receipt of the documents. Thereafter, any party to the
arbitration may request copies of such documents, which must be
provided within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of such request.
Again, these proposed new rules parallel the existing related
provisions in the Subpoena Rules.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 11.

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

III. Discussion of Comment Letters

    The Commission received three comment letters on the proposed rule
change in response to the Notice.\20\ All three comment letters
supported the proposed rule change. The St. John's Letter supported the
proposed rule change noting that St. John's believes that encouraging
the use of orders instead of subpoenas would minimize the involvement
of courts in the arbitration process and, consequently, maximize
efficiency of the arbitration process. In addition, St. John's believes
that by codifying existing processes for non-parties to file objections
to a subpoena, and clarifying the process for determining
responsibility for fees related to the appearance of witnesses by and
production of documents from non-parties, the proposal would create
greater certainty for arbitration participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra notes 4, 5 and 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Pace Letter supported the proposed rule change, also noting
that encouraging the issuance of orders instead of subpoenas would
minimize the involvement of litigation in arbitration and consequently
reduce associated costs and delays. The Pace Letter also noted that the
proposal would create a unified enforceable process that enhances
efficiency for resolving disputes.
    The PIABA Letter also supported the proposed rule change because it
would encourage the use of orders rather than subpoenas for compelling
the appearance of witnesses by and production of documents from non-
parties. In addition, PIABA favors codifying previously undocumented
processes and making consistent arbitration procedures governing the
use of orders and subpoenas.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ In a telephone conversation on October 22, 2012, among
Margo Hassan, Ken Adrichik and Linda Fienberg of FINRA, Ryan
Bakhtiari of PIABA, and Leila Bham of the Commission, PIABA
confirmed that the entirety of the last paragraph of the PIABA
Letter should be disregarded and considered deleted. This last
paragraph had expressed concern over FINRA rules regarding
allocation of costs in connection with the use of subpoenas and
orders in FINRA arbitration. As a result, the PIABA Letter is
considered in its entirety to be supportive of the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and
the comments received. Based on its review, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities association. In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section
15A(b)(6) of the Act,\22\ which requires, among other things, that
FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, the Commission believes that the proposed
amendments would encourage the use of orders instead of subpoenas in
arbitration, codify certain existing processes, and standardize other
procedures relating to subpoenas and arbitrator orders. In particular,
the Commission believes that the use of orders in the first instance
instead of subpoenas, with respect to compelling the appearance of
witnesses and production of documents, could lower discovery costs. The
Commission also believes that by codifying existing processes and
eliminating the disparity between the Subpoena Rules and the Order
Rules, the proposed rule will eliminate potential confusion over the
applicability of certain provisions of the Codes and, consequently,
enhance the efficiency of the arbitration process for its users.
    The Commission has reviewed the record for the proposed rule change
and believes that the record does not contain any information to
indicate that the proposed rule would have a significant effect on
efficiency, competition, or capital formation. In light of the record,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation and has concluded that the proposed
rule is unlikely to have any significant effect.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons stated above, the Commission finds that the rule
change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\24\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2012-041) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-30273 Filed 12-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P