[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60976-60977]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24171]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0272]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Saugus River, Revere and Lynn,
MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the operating schedule that
governs the General Edwards SR1A Bridge across the Saugus River at mile
1.7, between Revere and Lynn, Massachusetts. The bridge owner,
Massachusetts Department of Transportation, submitted a request to
require a two-hour advance notice for bridge openings at all times
based upon infrequent requests to open the draw during past years. It
is expected that this change to the regulations will create efficiency
in drawbridge operations while continuing to meet the reasonable needs
of navigation.

DATES: This rule is effective November 10, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2014-0272. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type in the
docket number in the ``Search'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District Bridge Branch,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On April 25, 2014, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulation Saugus River, Revere
and Lynn, Massachusetts'' in the Federal Register (79 FR 22911). We
received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was
requested, and none was held.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The General Edwards SR1A Bridge across the Saugus River at mile
1.7, between Revere and Lynn, Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance
of 27 feet at mean high water and 36 feet at mean low water. The
drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.618(b).
    The waterway users are commercial lobster boats and seasonal
recreational vessels of various sizes.
    The owner of the bridge, Massachusetts Department of
Transportation, submitted a request to the Coast Guard to change the
drawbridge operating regulations that presently require the bridge to
open on signal; except that, from April 1 through November 30, from
midnight through 8 a.m. at least an eight hour advance notice is
required for bridge openings, and at all times from December 1 through
March 31, at least an eight hour advance notice is required for bridge
openings.
    Under this final rule the bridge will open on signal at all times
if at least a two-hour advance notice is given by calling the number
posted at the bridge.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the notice of
proposed rulemaking. As a result, no changes have been made to this
final rule.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. We believe that this rule is not a
significant regulatory action because the bridge will still open for
all vessel traffic at all times provided the two-hour advance notice is
given.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard
received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this
rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels needing to
transit through the bridge.
    This action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The
General Edwards SR1A Bridge will open on signal at all times provided
at least a two hour advance notice is given.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule, if the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that
Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
order 13211, Actions Concerns Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or
procedures for drawbridges. This rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.618, paragraph (b), to read as follows:

Sec.  117.618  Saugus River.

* * * * *
    (b) The draw of the General Edwards SR1A Bridge, mile 1.7, between
Revere and Lynn, shall open on signal at all times if at least a two-
hour advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the
bridge.
* * * * *

    Dated: July 30, 2014.
L.L. Fagan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014-24171 Filed 10-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61526-61529]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24508]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0254; Product Identifier 2019-NM-011-AD; Amendment
39-19763; AD 2019-20-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus SAS Model A318 and A319 series airplanes, Model A320-
211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321-
111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. This AD
was prompted by a report that cracks were detected on frame (FR) 16 and
FR 20 web holes and passenger door intercostal fitting holes at the
door stop fitting locations. This AD requires repetitive rototest
inspections of the holes at the door stop fittings for any cracking,
and corrective actions if necessary, as specified in a European
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 December 18, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 18,
2019.

ADDRESSES: For the material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2019-0254.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0254; 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 regulatory evaluation, 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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS
Model A318 and A319 series airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216,
-231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -
212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on May 8, 2019 (84 FR 20054).

The NPRM was prompted by a report that cracks were detected on FR 16
and FR 20 web holes and passenger door intercostal fitting holes at the
door stop fitting locations. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive
rototest inspections of the holes at the door stop fittings for any
cracking, and corrective actions if necessary.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address such cracking, which could
affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0289, dated December 21, 2018
(``EASA AD 2018-0289'') (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A318 and A319 series
airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and
-232 airplanes. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking of FR 16
and FR 20 web holes and passenger door intercostal fitting holes at the
door stop fitting locations. Such cracking could affect the structural
integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background
information.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2019-0254.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Provide Relief to Requirements in an Affected AD

    Allegiant Air commented that the proposed AD states that no AD
would be affected; however, it believes that AD 2018-25-02 would be
affected by the proposed AD. Allegiant Air stated that paragraph (g)(1)
of AD 2018-25-02 requires a revision to the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate Airbus A318/A319/
A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Section Part 2--Damage Tolerant
Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Variation 6.3, dated October
24, 2017. Allegiant Air commented that this variation includes ALI
tasks 531103-01-2 and 531103-01-3, which EASA AD 2018-0289 indicated
will be deleted from Airworthiness Limitation Section Part 2. Allegiant
Air stated that if the NPRM becomes an AD, the proposed AD should be
revised to show that it affects AD 2018-25-02, and it should also
provide relief to the requirement to include these two ALI tasks in an
operator's maintenance or inspection program. Allegiant Air further
commented that EASA AD 2018-0289 states that Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-53-1330 is a terminating action for the inspections required by
ALI task 531103, which EASA AD 2018-0289 indicates will be deleted.
    The FAA agrees to clarify. This AD does not supersede or terminate
AD 2018-25-02. However, ALI tasks 531103-01-2 and 531103-01-3, which
were incorporated into the maintenance or inspection program as part of
the revision required by AD 2018-25-02, are affected. This AD allows
those tasks to be terminated as specified in the provisions of EASA
2018-0289.
     As specified in paragraph (5) of EASA AD 2018-0289, the
inspection requirements for ALI task 531103 are cancelled for an
airplane if the optional terminating action specified in paragraph (5)
of EASA AD 2018-0289 is done.
     As specified in paragraph (6) of EASA AD 2018-0289, the
inspection requirements for ALI task 531103 are cancelled at repaired
door stop locations if the optional terminating action specified in
paragraphs (6) of EASA AD 2018-0289 is done.
     As specified in paragraph (7) of EASA AD 2018-0289, the
inspection requirements for ALI task 531103 are cancelled if the
applicable actions required by paragraphs (1) through (4) of EASA AD
2018-0289 are done.
    The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Retain Certain Requirements

    An anonymous commenter requested that the proposed AD and
paragraphs (5) and (6) of EASA AD 2018-0289, dated December 21, 2018,
be ``retained in any FAA AD.'' The commenter also requested that
modification using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1330 be counted as a
terminating action to any FAA AD, and if this is not possible, then the
commenter requested that the FAA retain the same requirements of
paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2018-0289.
    The FAA infers that the commenter wants to ensure that the proposed
requirements and provisions are carried over into the final rule. For
clarification, paragraphs (2), (5), and (6) of EASA AD 2018-0289 are
included in the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, which
requires compliance with all required actions and compliance times
specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2018-0289. All
provisions, including credit and terminating action specified in EASA
AD 2018-0289 also apply to this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD in
this regard.

Request To Revise the Compliance Time

    United Airlines (UAL) requested that ALI task 531103-01-2 be
carried over in the proposed AD with a compliance time of up to 120
days from the effective date of the AD or until the ALI is deleted,
whichever occurs later. UAL commented that EASA AD 2018-0289 specifies
that ALI tasks 531103-01-2 and 531103-01-3 will be deleted by Airbus at
the next airworthiness limitations section revision opportunity;
therefore, there is no reason the ALI task cannot be carried over
because ALI task 531103-01-2 and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1339
describe procedures for the same open hole rotating probe high
frequency eddy current inspection. UAL stated that the ALI task and the
service information have the same inspection threshold and intervals.
UAL stated that this will allow operators' maintenance program and
engineering departments adequate time to transition internal task cards
and/or engineering orders from the ALI task to the service information
instructions; transitioning internal documents immediately after
publication of the proposed AD is not feasible.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. For clarification,
EASA AD 2018-0289 is replacing the requirements imposed by ALI tasks
531103-01-2 and 531103-01-3. This AD, as specified in paragraphs (5),
(6), and (7) of EASA AD 2018-0289, allows for the termination of the
ALI tasks if the conditions stated in the applicable paragraph are met.
Operators have the option to perform the repetitive inspections (no
change to ALI tasks), or terminate the repetitive inspections by
complying with the provisions specified in paragraphs (5), (6), or (7)
of EASA AD 2018-0289. The FAA may issue separate rulemaking in the
future that will require tasks that will replace the applicable
existing ALI tasks. The FAA has not revised this AD in this regard.

Request To Use a Certain Repair Drawing

    UAL requested that the FAA allow repair drawing R53113118 to be
used for repair instructions as an alternative to the corrective action
specified in paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2018-0289.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. The repair drawing
will vary based on the

configuration of the airplane and the extent of the findings during the
inspection. However, any person may request approval of an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (i) of
this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor
editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2018-0289 describes procedures for repetitive rototest
inspections of the holes at the door stop fittings for any cracking,
and corrective actions if necessary. 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 1,229 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33 work-hours x $85 per hour = $2,805........................              $0           $2,805       $3,447,345
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

                Estimated Costs for On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
51 work-hours x $85 per hour = $4,335.            $350           $4,685
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the
agency to provide cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified
in this AD.

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2019-20-10 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19763; Docket No. FAA-2019-0254;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-011-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 18, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus SAS airplanes specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD, certificated in any

category, as identified in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2018-0289, dated December 21, 2018 (``EASA AD 2018-0289'').
    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133
airplanes.
    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes.
    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232
airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that cracks were detected on
frame (FR) 16 and FR 20 web holes and passenger door intercostal
fitting holes at the door stop fitting locations. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address such cracking, which could affect the structural
integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2018-0289.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2018-0289

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where EASA AD 2018-0289 refers to its effective date,
this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2018-0289 does not apply
to this AD.
    (3) Where Table 1 of EASA AD 2018-0289 refers to a compliance
time ``after 31 May 2017,'' this AD requires using a compliance time
after May 31, 2018 (the effective date of task 531103-01-1 in ``ALS
Part 2 rev. 6'').

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards 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 International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may
be emailed 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.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2018-0289 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(k) 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 2018-0289, dated
December 21, 2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2018-0289, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-
Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 6017; 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, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. EASA AD
2018-0289 may be found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2019-0254.
    (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 in Des Moines, Washington, on October 18, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-24508 Filed 11-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 52116]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21296]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of
Directors

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors
Meeting.

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

TIME AND DATE: The meeting will be held on September 6, 2012, from
12:00 noon to 3:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time.

PLACE: This meeting will be open to the public via conference call. Any
interested person may call 1-877-820-7831, passcode, 908048 to listen
and participate in this meeting.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board
of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to
that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified
Carrier Registration Board of Directors at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on: August 24, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-21296 Filed 8-24-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Hello.  My name is Dave Arndt, a Baltimore Maryland resident and a Climate, Environmental and Social Justice advocate.  These three areas have a lot of overlap and I am going to focus on topics at the intersection of these areas.  By design all of the injustice is burdened on Black, Brown and low-income areas.
We have two incinerators within 10 miles of my house.  One is for municipal wastes and the other is for medical waste.  The Baltimore region ranks among the worst in the U.S. for air pollution. A study by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in 2017 found air quality in the region was ranked moderate or worse one of every three days, according to the EPA's Air Quality Index. The same study notes poor air quality triggers asthma and can cause other health issues. Little wonder then that children in Baltimore City have asthma at twice the rate of the rest of the country.
The story doesn't stop there, it continues with Plastics, the new coal.  Baltimore has a single-stream recycling program.  In total only 3% of plastics are recycled in Baltimore.  Of the total trash collected, about 49% of it goes to the incinerator.  Where it is burned, then breathed in by residents.  The toxic ash is taken to the landfill, located in the same Black, Brown and low-income area.  At the same time petroleum companies are ramping up production of single use plastics to offset the decline in fuel use. Thus, increasing the waste stream being burned
Incidentally, on the medical waste incinerator, NIH's medical waste used to be burned in Bethesda, but now it is burned in Baltimore - a move from a white area to a Black, Brown, and low-income area.
Baltimore does not have composting, so it's the same story. 40% of compostable materials go to the incinerator. The rest goes to landfill, where a large amount of methane gas is produced.
Now add a few more layers, 36 RMP facilities, a chemical factory which is a large emitter of carcinogens, a working port with piles of coal, plus major interstates cutting through the neighborhoods.  All having a cumulative effect.
Another example is that we are trying to stop a crematorium from being built in a residential neighborhood.  The EPA has allowed the funeral industry to change the classification of these incinerators to a non-clean air act regulated industry, for marketing reasons.  So profits over the health of residents.
I would like to end with a quote from Richard Moore, the National Co-Coordinator of the Environmental Justice Health Alliance:  "You can't separate health from environmental justice, because environmental justice is health. And you can't separate issues of climate change and global warming because environmental justice and economic justice is addressing global warming and climate change. And so those intersections are very crucial."


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12625-12627]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05792]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82889; File No. SR-BOX-2018-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Correct an Error in IM-7600-2

March 16, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 12, 2018, BOX Options Exchange LLC (``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to correct an inadvertent error in IM-7600-2.
The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal
office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and
also on the Exchange's internet website at http://boxoptions.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend IM-7600-2 to
correct an inadvertent error that was [sic] subject of a prior rule
filing. In August 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'') approved BOX's filing to establish rules for an open-outcry
trading floor.\3\ The Exchange notes that it mistakenly referenced
``Public Customers'' rather than ``Customers'' in IM-7600-2(h) when
establishing these rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 81292 (August 2, 2017),
82 FR 37144 (August 8, 2017) (Order Approving SR-BOX-2016-48 as
modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under IM-7600-2(h) a Floor Broker must deliver written notification
prior to entering a tied hedge order on behalf

of their client. The intent of the rule was to require Floor Brokers to
provide notice to all clients when entering in a tied hedge order on
their behalf; however, the term ``Customer'' was inadvertently changed
to ``Public Customer'' in the drafting process. Under the BOX Rules,
the term ``Customer'' means either a Public Customer or a broker-
dealer,\4\ whereas the term ``Public Customer'' means a person that is
not a broker or dealer in securities.\5\ As such, the rule as it is
currently written does not require the Floor Broker to notify non-
Public Customer clients prior to entering a tied hedge order on their
behalf; which was not the intent of the rule. The Exchange believes it
is reasonable and appropriate for all of a Floor Broker's clients,
regardless of Participant type, to receive written notice prior to the
Floor Broker entering in a tied hedge order on their behalf as it will
provide transparency to the client.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 100(a)(17).
    \5\ See Rule 100(a)(52).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Exchange proposes to replace the term ``Public
Customer'' with the term ``Customer'' in Rule IM-7600-2(h). The
Exchange believes the term ``Customer'' is more appropriate as broker-
dealers should not have been excluded from the requirements of Rule IM-
7600-2(h) when it was initially adopted. Additionally, the proposed
correction is similar to the language used in the rules of another
options exchange.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NYSE Arca (``Arca'') Rule 6.47-O.01(h). The Exchange's
reading of Arca's rule is that the term ``customer'' includes
broker-dealers as well as Public Customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it is not proposing to amend any other part
of the tied-hedge rule and the BOX rules already allow for Floor
Brokers to submit tied hedge orders on behalf of broker dealers.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it is designed to protect
investors and the public interest, promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities by
correcting an inadvertent error that was made in the adoption of the
rule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to change the reference from
``Public Customers'' to ``Customers'' in Rule IM-7600-2(h). The
Exchange believes the term ``Customer'' is more appropriate as broker-
dealers should not have been excluded from the requirements of Rule IM-
7600-2(h) when it was initially adopted. Further, the Exchange believes
it is reasonable and appropriate for all of a Floor Broker's clients,
regardless of Participant type, to receive written notice prior to the
Floor Broker entering in a tied hedge order on their behalf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the proposed correction is similar to the language
used in the rules of another options exchange.

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

    The proposed rule change will not impose any burden on competition
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act
as the proposed rule change is simply seeking to eliminate investor
confusion with regard to the incorrect reference in Rule IM-7600-2(h).
As such, 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.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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, the proposed rule
change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
\9\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \11\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \12\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange
notes that waiver of the operative delay would allow it to implement
the proposal immediately and would require a Floor Broker to provide
written notice to its non-Public Customer clients, as well as its
Public Customer clients, prior to entering a tied hedge order on their
behalf. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because the proposed rule change is designed to provide clarity and
transparency to non-Public Customers regarding the usage of tied hedge
orders by Floor Brokers and the Exchange's tied hedge order procedures.
The Commission also notes that the proposed rule change does not change
the Exchange's existing tied hedge rule that permits Floor Brokers to
submit tied hedge orders on behalf of non-Public Customers. Rather, the
proposed rule change would simply require Floor Brokers to provide the
same type of notice to non-Public Customers as is currently required to
be provided to Public Customers. Accordingly, the Commission hereby
waives the operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2018-09 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-BOX-2018-09. 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-BOX-2018-09 and should be submitted on
or before April 12, 2018.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-05792 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P