[Federal Register: June 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 122)]
[Notices]
[Page 36387-36388]
[DOCID:fr25jn10-56]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0532; FRL-9168-5]

Board of Scientific Counselors, Executive Committee Meeting--July
2010

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development (ORD), gives notice of a meeting of the Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) Executive Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Monday, July 12, 2010, from 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m., and will continue on Tuesday, July 13, 2010, from 8:30 a.m.
until 1 p.m. All times noted are pacific time. The meeting may adjourn
early if all business is finished. Requests for the draft agenda or for
making oral presentations at the meeting will be accepted up to one
business day before the meeting.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the U.S. EPA, 200 SW. 35th
Street, Corvallis, OR 97333. Submit your comments, identified by Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0532, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0532.
     Fax: Fax comments to:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0532.
     Mail: Send comments by mail to: Board of Scientific
Counselors, Executive Committee Meeting--February 2010 Docket,
Mailcode: 2822T, 1301 Constitution Avenue., NW., Washington, DC 20004,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0532.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver comments to: EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Room 3334, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-
0532. Deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2010-0532. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
dockets.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Board of
Scientific Counselors, Executive Committee Meeting--July 2010 Docket,
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
ORD Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer via
mail at: Greg Susanke, Mail Code 8104-R, Office

of Science Policy, Office of Research and Development, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460;
via phone/voice mail at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; via fax at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
via e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

    Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft BOSC
agenda or making a presentation at the meeting may contact Greg
Susanke, the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the contact methods
listed in the ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section above. In
general, each individual making an oral presentation will be limited to
a total of three minutes.
    Proposed agenda items for the meeting include, but are not limited
to: Executive Committee review of the ORD response to the BOSC Human
Health Review Report, and ORD Mid-Cycle Progress Reports on the Human
Health Risk Assessment and Safe Pesticides/Safe Products Research
Programs; an Ecosystem Informatics Session; an ORD update; and future
business. The meeting is open to the public.
    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For
information on access or services for individuals with disabilities,
please contact Greg Susanke<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To
request accommodation of a disability, please contact Greg Susanke,
preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much
time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: June 14, 2010.
Fred Hauchman,
Director, Office of Science Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-15499 Filed 6-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 164)]
[Notices]
[Page 43188-43191]
[DOCID:fr26au09-127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60525; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2009-056]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment
No. 1 Thereto To Adopt Rules Implementing the Options Order Protection
and Locked/Crossed Market Plan

August 18, 2009.

I. Introduction

    On June 23, 2009, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdasq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend and adopt rules to implement the Options
Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on July 8,
2009.\3\ On August 14, 2009, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change.\4\ The Commission received no comments on the
proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60186 (June 29,
2009), 74 FR 32657 (``Notice'').
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 made technical corrections to the rule text
proposed by Nasdaq. Because the amendment did not affect the
substance of the rule filing, the amendment did not require notice
and comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to amend and adopt new Nasdaq rules to
implement the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan
(``Plan'').\5\ Specifically, the Exchange proposes to replace current
Chapter XII of its rules with new rules implementing the Plan, amend
other Exchange rules to reflect

the Plan, and delete rules rendered unnecessary by the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Plan is a national market system plan proposed by the
seven existing options exchanges and approved by the Commission. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59647 (March 30, 2009), 74 FR
15010 (April 2, 2009) (File No. 4-546) (``Plan Notice'') and 60405
(July 30, 2009), 74 FR 39362 (August 6, 2009) (File No. 4-546)
(``Plan Approval''). The seven options exchanges are: Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''); International Securities
Exchange LLC (``ISE''); NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BOX''); NASDAQ OMX
PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx''); NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex''); NYSE Arca,
Inc. (``NYSE Arca''); and Nasdaq (each exchange individually a
``Participant'' and, together, the ``Participating Options
Exchanges'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Old Plan

    Each of the Participating Options Exchanges are signatories to the
Plan for the Purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket Option
Linkage (``Old Plan'').\6\ In pertinent part, the Old Plan generally
requires its participants to avoid trading at a price inferior to the
national best bid or offer (``trade-through''), although it provides
for a number of exceptions to trade-through liability.\7\ The
Participating Options Exchanges comply with this requirement of the Old
Plan by utilizing a stand alone system (``Linkage Hub'') to send and
receive specific order types,\8\ namely Principal Acting as Agent
Orders (``P/A Orders''), Principal Orders, and Satisfaction Orders.\9\
The Old Plan also provided that dissemination of ``locked'' or
``crossed'' markets should be avoided, and remedial actions that should
be taken to unlock or uncross such market.\10\ Each of the
Participating Options Exchanges, including the Exchange, has submitted
an amendment to the Old Plan to withdraw from such Plan.\11\ The
withdrawals will be effective upon approval by the Commission of such
amendments pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Act
(``Regulation NMS'').\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ On July 28, 2000, the Commission approved the Old Plan as a
national market system plan for the purpose of creating and
operating an intermarket options market linkage proposed by the
American Stock Exchange LLC (n/k/a NYSE Amex), CBOE, and ISE. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43086 (July 28, 2000), 65 FR
48023 (August 4, 2000). Subsequently, Philadelphia Stock Exchange,
Inc. (n/k/a Phlx), Pacific Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a NYSE Arca), Boston
Stock Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a BOX), and Nasdaq joined the Linkage
Plan. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 43573 (November 16,
2000), 65 FR 70851 (November 28, 2000); 43574 (November 16, 2000),
65 FR 70850 (November 28, 2000); 49198 (February 5, 2004), 69 FR
7029 (February 12, 2004); and 57545 (March 21, 2008), 73 FR 16394
(March 27, 2008).
    \7\ Section 8(c) of the Old Plan.
    \8\ The Linkage Hub is a centralized data communications network
that electronically links the Participating Options Exchanges to one
another. The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') operates the
Linkage Hub.
    \9\ Section 2(16) of the Old Plan.
    \10\ Section 7(a)(i)(C) of the Old Plan.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60360 (July 21,
2009) 74 FR 37265 (July 28, 2009) (File No. 4-429).
    \12\ 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Plan

    The Plan does not require a central linkage mechanism akin to the
Old Plan's Linkage Hub. Instead, the Plan includes the framework for
routing orders via private linkages that exist for NMS stocks under
Regulation NMS.\13\ The Plan requires the Participating Options
Exchanges to adopt rules ``reasonably designed to prevent Trade-
Throughs.'' \14\ Participating Options Exchanges are also required to
conduct surveillance of their respective markets on a regular basis to
ascertain the effectiveness of the policies and procedures to prevent
Trade-Throughs and to take prompt action to remedy deficiencies in such
policies and procedures.\15\ As further described below, the Plan
incorporates a number of exceptions to trade-through liability.\16\
Some of these exceptions are carried over from the Old Plan, including
exceptions for trading rotations, non-firm quotes, and complex
trades.\17\ Others are substantially similar to exceptions available
for NMS stocks under Regulation NMS, such as exceptions for systems
issues, crossed markets, quote flickering, customer stopped orders,
benchmark trades and, notably, intermarket sweep orders (``ISOs'').\18\
In addition, the Plan contains a new exception for stopped orders and
price improvement.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) (File No. S7-10-04); 17 CFR
242.600 et seq. For discussions of the similarities between the
provisions of Regulation NMS and the provisions in the Plan, see the
Plan Notice and Plan Approval, supra note 5.
    \14\ Under the Plan, a ``Trade-Through'' is generally defined as
a transaction in an option series, either as principal or agent, at
a price that is lower than a Protected Bid or higher than a
Protected Offer.'' See Section 2(21) of the Plan. A ``Protected
Bid'' and ``Protected Offer'' generally means a bid or offer in an
option series, respectively, that is displayed by a Participant, is
disseminated pursuant to the Options Price Reporting Authority
(``OPRA'') Plan, and is the Best Bid or Best Offer. See Section
2(17) of the Plan. A ``Best Bid'' or ``Best Offer'' means the
highest bid price and the lowest offer price. Section (2)(1) of the
Plan. ``Protected Bid'' and ``Protected Offer,'' together are
referred to herein as ``Protected Quotation.'' See Section 2(18) of
the Plan.
    \15\ Section 5(a)(ii) of the Plan.
    \16\ Section 5(b) of the Plan.
    \17\ Subparagraphs (ii), (vii), and (viii), respectively, of
Section 5(b) of the Plan.
    \18\ Subparagraphs (i), (iii), (vi), (ix), (xi), and (iv)-(v),
respectively, of Section 5(b) of the Plan.
    \19\ Subparagraph (x) of Section 5(b) of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan also requires each Participant to establish, maintain, and
enforce written rules that: require its members reasonably to avoid
displaying locked and crossed markets; assure the reconciliation of
locked and crossed markets; and prohibit its members from engaging in a
pattern or practice of displaying locked and crossed markets; subject
to exceptions as may be contained in the rules of the Participant, as
approved by the Commission.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Section 6 of the Plan. The Plan also contains provisions
relating to the operation of the Plan including, for example,
provisions relating to the entry of new parties to the Plan;
withdrawal from the Plan; and amendments to the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Exchange's Proposal

    To implement the Plan, the Exchange proposes to replace its current
rules relating to the Old Plan with new rules relating to the Plan, and
makes amendments to other rules as necessary to conform to the
requirements of the Plan.\21\ As such, the Exchange proposes to adopt
all applicable definitions from the Plan into the Exchange's rules.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ A more detailed description of the Exchange's proposed rule
change may be found in the Notice, supra, note 3.
    \22\ Proposed Nasdaq Chapter XII, Section 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to prohibit its members from
effecting Trade-Throughs, unless an exception applies.\23\ Consistent
with the Plan, the Exchange also proposes exceptions to the prohibition
on trade throughs relating to: System issues; trading rotations;
crossed markets; intermarket sweep orders; quote flickering; non-firm
quotes; complex trades; customer stopped orders; stopped orders and
price improvement; and benchmark trades.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Proposed Nasdaq Chapter XII, Section 2(a).
    \24\ Proposed Nasdaq Chapter XII, Section 2(b)(1)-(11). In
addition, the Exchange proposes to add ISOs as a new type of order
under proposed Nasdaq Chapter VI, Section 1(e)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes a rule to address locked and crossed
markets, as required by the Plan.\25\ Specifically, the Exchange
proposes that, except for quotations that fall within a stated
exception, members shall reasonably avoid displaying, and shall not
engage in a pattern or practice of displaying, any quotations that lock
or cross a Protected Quote.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ A ``locked market'' is defined as a quoted market in which
a Protected Bid is equal to a Protected Offer. Proposed Nasdaq
Chapter XII, Section 1(10). A ``crossed market'' is defined as a
quoted market in which a Protected Bid is higher than a Protected
Offer. Proposed Nasdaq Chapter XII, Section 1(5).
    \26\ Proposed Nasdaq Chapter XII, Section 3(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes three exceptions to the prohibition against
locked and crossed markets: when the Exchange is experiencing a
failure, material delay, or malfunction of its systems or equipment;
when the locking or crossing quotation was displayed at a time where
there is a crossed market; and when an Exchange member simultaneously
routes an ISO to execute against the full displayed size of any locked
or crossed Protected Bid or Protected Offer.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Proposed Nasdaq Chapter XII, Section 3(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes rules to permit it to continue to accept
P/A Orders and Principal Orders from Participating Options Exchanges
that are

not able to send ISOs in order to avoid Trade-Throughs.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Proposed Nasdaq Chapter XII, Section 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend certain other rules to reflect the
Plan and delete terms related to the Old Plan. In particular, the
Exchange proposes to amend Nasdaq Chapter IV, Section 5(b) and (c) and
Nasdaq Chapter VII, Section 5(a)(viii) to modify language that is no
longer applicable under the Plan and eliminate the ``Removal of
Unreliable Quotes'' provision of Nasdaq Chapter 12, Section 3(e).\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ In addition, the Exchange proposes to rely upon the order
routing arrangements already in place on its market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ proposes to implement this proposed rule change upon
withdrawal from the current Linkage Plan and effectiveness of the new
Plan.

II. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\30\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 9 \31\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The Commission also finds that the
proposal is consistent with Rule 608(c) of Regulation NMS under the
Act, which requires that each exchange comply with the terms of any
effective national market system plan of which it is a participant.\32\
Finally, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the Plan.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \32\ 17 CFR 242.608(c). Section 1 of the Plan provides in
pertinent part that, ``The Participants will submit to the
[Commission] for approval their respective rules that will implement
the framework of the Plan.''
    \33\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Nasdaq Chapter XII, Section 1 would define applicable
terms in a manner that are substantively identical to the defined terms
of the Plan.\34\ As such, the Commission finds that proposed Nasdaq
Chapter XII, Section 1 is consistent with the Act and the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The Commission notes that the Exchange's proposed
definition of ``Complex Trade'' under proposed Nasdaq Chapter XII,
Section 1(4) is identical to the definition of ``Complex Trade''
under old Nasdaq Chapter XII, Section 1(c), which is being deleted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Nasdaq Chapter XII, Section 2(a) would prohibit members
from effecting Trade-Throughs unless an exception applies. Proposed
Nasdaq Chapter XII, Section 2(b) would provide for 11 exceptions to the
general Trade-Through prohibition, relating to systems issues, trading
rotations, crossed markets, ISOs, quote flickering, non-firm quotes,
complex trades, customer stopped orders, stopped orders and price
improvement, and benchmark trades.\35\ Aside from the proposed
exception relating to systems issues, each proposed exception would be
substantively identical to the parallel exception under Section 5(b) of
the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Proposed Nasdaq Chapter XII, Section 2(b)(1)-(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The systems issues exception under proposed Nasdaq Chapter XII,
Section 2(b)(1) would implement the parallel exception available under
Section 5(b)(i) of the Plan and would permit the Exchange to bypass the
Protected Quotation of another Participant if such other Participant
repeatedly fails to respond within one second to incoming orders
attempting to access its Protected Quotations. The Exchange's rule
would require the Exchange to notify such non-responding Participant
immediately after (or at the same time as) electing self-help, and
assess whether the cause of the problem lies with the Exchange's own
systems and, if so, take immediate steps to resolve the problem.
Finally, the Exchange would be required to promptly document its
reasons supporting any such determination to bypass a Protected
Quotation. The Commission believes that this exception should provide
the Exchange with the necessary flexibility for dealing with problems
that occur on an away market during the trading day. At the same time,
the exception's requirements to immediately notify such away market of
its determination and also assess its own system should help prevent
the use of this exception when there in fact is a problem with the
Exchange's own systems, rather than those of an away market.
    The Commission notes that included among the exceptions in proposed
Nasdaq Chapter XII, Section 2(b) would be exceptions for certain
transactions involving ISOs.\36\ An order identified as an ISO would be
immediately executable by the Exchange (or any other Plan Participant
that received such an order) based on the premise that the market
participant sending the ISO has already attempted to access all better-
priced Protected Quotations up to their displayed size. The Commission
believes that this exception should help ensure more efficient and
faster executions in the options markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Proposed Nasdaq Chapter XII, Sections 2(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, in addition to these rules regarding
Trade-Throughs, the Plan requires that each Participant establish,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to prevent Trade-Throughs in that Participant's
market that do not fall within an applicable exception and, if relying
on such exception, that are reasonably designed to assure compliance
with the terms of the exception. In addition, the Commission notes that
the Plan requires each Participant to conduct surveillance of its
market on a regular basis to ascertain the effectiveness of such
policies and procedures and to take prompt action to remedy any
deficiencies in such policies and procedures.
    Accordingly, the Commission finds that proposed Nasdaq Chapter XII,
Section 2 is consistent with Section 5 of the Plan and Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act \37\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Nasdaq Chapter XII, Section 3(a) would require Exchange
members to reasonably avoid displaying, and not engage in a pattern or
practice of displaying, any quotation that locks or crosses a Protected
Quotation, subject to certain exceptions delineated in proposed Nasdaq
Chapter XII, Section 3(b). The Commission recognizes that locked and
crossed markets may occur accidentally and cannot always be avoided.
However, the Commission believes that giving priority to the first-
displayed Protected Bid or Protected Offer, particularly when it
includes a public customer's order, will encourage price discovery and
contribute to fair and orderly markets. Therefore, the Commission
believes that the proposed rule, which corresponds to the Plan's
language, to require members to reasonably avoid displaying, and not
engaging in a pattern or practice of, locks and crosses is appropriate.
    Proposed Nasdaq Chapter XII, Section 3(b) would permit three
exceptions to

the Exchange's general rule relating to locked and crossed markets.\38\
These exceptions would be similar to analogous certain trade-through
exceptions under proposed Nasdaq Chapter XII, Section 2(b), and relate
to when the Exchange is experiencing systems issues, when there exists
a crossed market, and when a member simultaneously routes ISOs against
the full displayed size of any locked or crossed Protected Bid or
Protected Offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Section 6 of the Plan permits exceptions to the Plan's
locked and crossed market rules as may be contained in the rules of
a Participant approved by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposed rules relating
to locked and crossed markets are consistent with the Plan and the Act
and should help ensure that the display of locked or crossed markets
will be limited and that any such display will be promptly reconciled.
The Commission also believes that each of the proposed exceptions to
locked and crossed markets relate to circumstances when it is
appropriate to permit a limited, narrow exception to the general locked
and crossed market rule.
    Therefore, the Commission finds that Exchange's rule regarding
locked and crossed markets appropriately implements Section 6 of the
Plan, and is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \39\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds that proposed Nasdaq Chapter XII, Section
4, which facilitates the participation of certain Participating Options
Exchanges who may require the use of P/A Orders and Principal Orders
after implementation of the Plan, is consistent with the Act. Although
the Commission has already approved the Plan,\40\ the Commission also
recognizes that there may be one or more Participating Options
Exchanges that may require a temporary transition period during which
they may want to continue to utilize these order types that exist
currently under the Old Plan.\41\ The Exchange and each of the other
Participating Options Exchanges have proposed substantially identical
temporary provisions to accommodate this possibility.\42\ Thus, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule relating to the Exchange's
receipt and handling of P/A Orders and Principal Orders, and imposing
certain obligations on the Exchange with respect to such orders that
are similar to those that exist under the Old Plan, is appropriate and
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \43\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Plan Approval, supra, note 5.
    \41\ The Commission notes that any Participating Options
Exchange that wishes to utilize such order types in a manner that
would result in a Trade-Through would need to separately request an
exemption from the Plan for such use.
    \42\ The Commission notes that the rules contained in Proposed
Nasdaq Chapter XII, Section 4 are not required by the Plan, but
rather are rules proposed by the Exchange in order to facilitate the
participation in the Plan of certain exchanges during an initial
transition period.
    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission finds that Nasdaq's proposed amendments to
certain other Nasdaq rules to modify and/or delete language that is no
longer necessary under the Plan are appropriate and consistent with the
Act and the Plan.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\44\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2009-056), as
modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-20535 Filed 8-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 62365]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21743]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0829]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Louisville Dragon Boat Festival, Ohio
River

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation for
the Louisville Dragon Boat Festival on the Ohio River, from mile marker
603.0 and ending at 603.5. This rule is effective from 3 p.m. to 7:30
p.m. on September 9, 2016 and from 7 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on September 10,
2016. During the enforcement period, no vessel may transit this
regulated area unless registered with the sponsor as a participant or
an official patrol vessel, or unless specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.801, Table No. 1, Line no. 12 will
be enforced for the Louisville Dragon Boat Festival as identified in
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below with dates and times.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email James Robinson, Sector Ohio
Valley, U.S. Coast Guard at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce a special local
regulation for the Louisville Dragon Boat Festival listed in 33 CFR
100.801, Table no. 1, Line no. 12, from 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on
September 9, 2016 and from 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on September 10, 2016.
This action is necessary to protect persons, property, and
infrastructure from potential damage and safety hazards associated with
the Louisville Dragon Boat Festival. These regulations can be found in
the Code of Federal Regulations, under 33 CFR 100.801. During the
enforcement period no vessel may transit this regulated area unless
registered with the sponsor as a participant or official patrol vessel,
or unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP). If permission
is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions
of the COTP or designated representative.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR part
100 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in
the Federal Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide the maritime
community with advanced notification of this enforcement period via
Local Notice to Mariners (LNM) and Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM).
If the COTP Ohio Valley determines that the special local regulation
need not be enforced for the full duration, a BNM to grant general
permission to enter the regulated area may be used.

    Dated: September 6, 2016.
M.B. Zamperini,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2016-21743 Filed 9-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Summary Nonattainment Area Population Exposure Report  As of December 14, 2012

Ordered by state code(s)  All Carbon Monoxide areas were redesignated to maintenance areas as of September 27, 2010.  The NO2 nonattainment area became a maintenance area on September 22, 1998.                                     State(s)                          General Area Name (see note)                      2010 Population in 1000s (area count)

                               8-Hr Ozone (2008)                                8-Hr Ozone (1997)                                  PM-2.5 (2006)                                  PM-2.5 (1997)                                      PM-10                                       SO2                                   Lead (2008)                                      Lead AK  Anchorage         219(1)       AK  Fairbanks     87(1)           AK  Juneau         14(1)       AL  Birmingham     858(1) 858(1)         AL  Troy             2(1)   AZ  Ajo         9(1)       AZ  Douglas/Paul Spur (Cochise County)         17(1)       AZ  Hayden/Miami         26(2) 5(1)     AZ  Nogales     31(1)   30(1)       AZ  Phoenix-Mesa 3,850(1) 3,849(1)     3,853(1)       AZ  Rillito (Pima County)         1(1)       AZ  West Central Pinal     52(1)   283(1)       AZ  Yuma         101(1)       CA  Amador and Calaveras Cos (Central Mountain Cos) 46(1) 84(1)             CA  Chico 220(1) 220(1) 218(1)           CA  Imperial County 175(1) 175(1) 154(1)   147(1)       CA  Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin 15,723(3) 15,719(1) 15,716(1) 15,716(1) 15,799(1)   9,437(1)   CA  Mariposa and Tuolumne Cos (Southern Mountain Cos) 18(1) 74(1)             CA  Mono County         7(2)       CA  Nevada Co. (Western Part) 82(1) 82(1)             CA  Owens Valley         7(1)       CA  Sacramento Metro 2,241(1) 2,244(1) 2,206(1)   1,419(1)       CA  San Diego 3,095(1) 3,093(1)             CA  San Francisco-Bay Area 6,973(1) 6,971(1) 6,971(1)           CA  San Joaquin Valley 3,938(2) 3,938(2) 3,842(1) 3,842(1) 126(1)       CA  San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles 2(1)               CA  Searles Valley         4(1)       CA  Southeast Desert Modified AQMA 1,294(2) 1,294(2)     495(2)       CA  Tuscan Bluffs 0(1)               CA  Ventura County 823(1) 823(1)             CA  Yuba City   0(1) 165(1)           CO  Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland Area 3,330(1) 3,330(1)             CT  Greater Connecticut 1,629(1) 1,629(1)             DC-MD-VA  Washington 5,136(1) 5,136(1)   5,047(1)         FL  Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater             4(1)   GA  Atlanta 4,753(1) 5,260(1)   5,265(1)         GA  Macon       158(1)         GA  Rome       96(1)         GU  Piti Power Plant           1(1)     GU  Tanguisson Power Plant           1(1)     IA  Council Bluffs             13(1)   ID  Bonner County (Sandpoint)         41(1)       ID  Pocatello         1(1)       ID  Shoshone County         11(2)       IL-IN-WI  Chicago-Gary-Lake County 9,180(1)     9,050(1)     36(1)   IN  Indianapolis       1,532(1)         IN  Muncie             1(1)   KS  Salina             0(1)   KY-IN  Louisville       1,019(1)         LA  Baton Rouge 733(1)               MA  Springfield (W. Mass)   824(1)             MA-NH  Boston-Worcester-Manchester 17(1) 6,464(2)             MD  Baltimore 2,663(1) 2,663(1)   2,663(1)         MD-WV  Hagerstown-Martinsburg       252(1)         MI  Belding             2(1)   MI  Detroit-Ann Arbor     4,705(1) 4,705(1)         MN  Minneapolis-St. Paul             9(1)   MO  Iron             0(1)   MO-IL  St. Louis 2,571(1) 2,594(1)   2,573(1)     44(2) 3(1) MT  Billings/Laurel           7(1)     MT  Butte         34(1)       MT  Columbia Falls (Flathead County)         5(1)       MT  East Helena           3(1)   3(1) MT  Kalispell (Flathead County)         18(1)       MT  Lame Deer         1(1)       MT  Libby       9(1) 3(1)       MT  Missoula         60(1)       MT  Polson (Lake County)         4(1)       MT  Ronan (Lake County)         3(1)       MT  Thompson Falls         1(1)       MT  Whitefish (Flathead County)         6(1)       NC-SC  Charlotte-Gastonia 1,901(1) 1,969(1)             NM  Anthony         3(1)       NV  Las Vegas   1,919(1)     1,951(1)       NV  Reno         421(1)       NY  Albany-Schenectady-Troy   970(1)             NY  Buffalo-Niagara Falls   1,136(1)             NY  Essex County; Whiteface Mountain   0(1)             NY  Jamestown 135(1) 135(1)             NY  Jefferson County   116(1)             NY  Poughkeepsie   770(1)             NY  Rochester   1,114(1)             NY-NJ-CT  New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island 20,217(1) 20,217(1) 20,404(1) 20,404(1) 1,586(1)       OH  Bellefontaine             6(1)   OH  Canton-Massillon     376(1) 376(1)         OH  Cleveland-Akron-Lorain 2,882(1)   2,687(1) 2,710(1)     8(1)   OH  Columbus 1,755(1)     1,652(1)         OH  Dayton-Springfield       835(1)         OH  Delta             3(1)   OH-KY-IN  Cincinnati-Hamilton 1,989(1)               OH-WV  Steubenville-Weirton     124(1) 124(1)         OR  Eugene-Springfield         195(1)       OR  Klamath Falls     47(1)           OR  Oakridge     4(1)   4(1)       PA  Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle     1,072(1) 637(1)         PA  Johnstown     157(1) 157(1)         PA  Lancaster 519(1)   519(1) 519(1)         PA  Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 2,356(1) 2,356(1) 2,164(2) 2,164(2)   5(1) 18(1)   PA  Reading 411(1)     411(1)     49(2)   PA  York       435(1)         PA-DE-NJ-MD Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton 7,634(2) 7,797(1) 5,798(1) 5,798(1)         PA-NJ  Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton 712(1)   647(1)     109(1)     PR  Arecibo             32(1)   RI  Providence (all of RI)   1,053(1)             TN  Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol             2(1)   TN  Knoxville 573(1)   682(1) 682(1)         TN  Memphis 1,127(1)               TN-GA-AL  Chattanooga       471(1)         TX  Dallas-Fort Worth 6,280(1) 6,221(1)         4(1)   TX  El Paso         649(1)       TX  Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 5,892(1) 5,892(1)             UT  Ogden         83(1)       UT  Provo     518(1)   517(1)       UT  Salt Lake City     1,665(1)   1,030(1) 1,030(1)     UT  Tooele County           58(1)     UT-ID  Logan     125(1)           WA  Seattle-Tacoma     540(1)           WI  Milwaukee-Racine     1,533(1)           WI  Sheboygan 116(1) 116(1)             WV  Charleston     249(1) 249(1)         WV-KY-OH  Huntington-Ashland       343(1)         WV-OH  Parkersburg-Marietta       150(1)         WV-OH  Wheeling       148(1)         WY  Sheridan         17(1)       WY  Upper Green River Basin 11(1)                 2010 Population (area count) by Pollutant Total Estimated 2010 Population in Nonattainment

Across All Criteria Pollutants: 158,701

8-Hr Ozone (2008)

8-Hr Ozone (1997)

PM-2.5 (2006)

PM-2.5 (1997)

PM-10

SO2

Lead (2008)

Lead

123,004 ( 46)

118,247 ( 41)

74,316 ( 32)

91,050 ( 35)

29,202 ( 46)

1,217 ( 9)

9,669 ( 21)

5 ( 2)

The Summary Population Exposure Report is a summary of the population living in an area that is in nonattainment for at least one of the NAAQS.  Area Name:  The "State(s) Area Name" column contains a common or general name for the nonattainment areas on the row, but may not reflect the exact name of any area on the row. This column cannot be exact since the nonattainment area for one pollutant may not contain the same counties, cities, or states as the nonattainment area for another pollutant on the same row. The abbreviations listed in the "State(s)" column reflect all states identified in row. However, some states on a row may be nonattainment for some pollutants and not for others in the general area. A multi-state area with states that have not all been redesignated to maintenance is counted as a nonattainment area until all of the states in the area are redesignated, with the whole area population displayed.


[Federal Register: October 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 204)]
[Notices]
[Page 62498-62499]
[DOCID:fr21oc08-55]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[OW-2003-0064, FRL-8731-1]

U.S. EPA's National Clean Water Act Recognition Awards
Presentation During the Water Environment Federation's Technical
Exposition and Conference (WEFTEC), and Announcement of 2008 National
Awards Winners

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency recognized municipalities
and industries for outstanding and innovative technological
achievements in wastewater treatment and pollution abatement programs.
An inscribed plaque was presented to first and second place national
winners at the annual Clean Water Act Recognition Awards presentation
during the Water Environment Federation's Technical Exposition and
Conference (WEFTEC). Recognition is made for outstanding programs and
projects in operations and maintenance at wastewater treatment
facilities, biosolids management and public acceptance, municipal
implementation and enforcement of local pretreatment programs, cost-
effective storm water controls, and combined sewer overflow controls.
This action announces the 2008 national awards winners.

DATES: Monday, October 20, 2008, 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The national awards presentation ceremony was held at the
Hyatt Regency McCormick Place, Chicago, Illinois.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Richardson, Telephone: (202)
564-2947. Facsimile Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-Mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Also visit the Office of Wastewater
Management's Web page at http://www.epa.gov/owm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Clean Water Act Recognition Awards are
authorized by section 501(a) and (e) of the Clean Water Act, and 33
U.S.C. 1361(a) and (e). Applications and nominations for the national
awards are recommended by EPA regions. The regulation that establishes
the framework for the annual recognition awards program is at 40 CFR
part 105. EPA announced the availability of application and nomination
information for this year's awards (73 FR 16299, March 27, 2008). The
awards program enhances national awareness of municipal wastewater
treatment and encourages public support of programs targeted to
protecting the public's health and safety and the nation's water
quality. State water pollution control agencies and EPA regional
offices make recommendations to headquarters for the national awards.
Programs and projects being recognized are in compliance with
applicable water quality requirements and have a satisfactory record
with respect to environmental quality. Municipalities and industries
are recognized for their demonstrated creativity and technological
achievements in five awards categories as follows:
    (1) Outstanding Operations and Maintenance practices at wastewater
treatment facilities;
    (2) Exemplary Biosolids Management projects, technology/innovation
or development activities, research and public acceptance efforts;
    (3) Pretreatment Program Excellence;
    (4) Stormwater Management Excellence; and,
    (5) Outstanding Combined Sewer Overflow Control programs. The
winners of the EPA's 2008 National Clean Water Act Recognition Awards
are listed below by category.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Sub-category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Category: Operations and Maintenance Awards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O&M First Place:
    F. Wayne Hill Water Resources Center,         Large Advanced Plant.
     Buford, Georgia, EPA Region 4.
    El Paso Water Utilities Public Service        Large Advanced Plant.
     Board, Northwest Wastewater Treatment
     Facility, El Paso, Texas, EPA Region 6.
    City of Newnan--Wahoo Creek Water Pollution   Medium Advanced Plant.
     Control Plant, Newnan, Georgia, EPA Region
     4.
    Waterville Wastewater Treatment Facility,     Small Advanced Plant.
     Waterville, New York, EPA Region 2.
    Joint Water Pollution Control Plant, Carson,  Large Secondary Plant.
     California, EPA Region 9.
    Southside Wastewater Treatment Plant, City    Medium Non-Discharging
     of Vidalia, ESG Operations, Georgia, EPA      Plant.
     Region 4.
    The Manor Water Reclamation Facility,         Small Non-Discharging
     Alpharetta, Georgia, EPA Region 4.            Plant.
    Bristol, New Hampshire Wastewater Treatment   Most Improved Plant.
     Plant, Bristol, New Hampshire, EPA Region 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O&M Second Place:
    Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,       Large Secondary Plant.
     Martinez, California, EPA Region 9.
    Grandville Wastewater Treatment Plant,        Medium Advanced Plant.
     Grandville, Michigan, EPA Region 5.
    Douglasville-Douglas County Water and Sewer   Small Advanced Plant.
     Authority, Beaver Estates Water Pollution
     Control Plant, Douglasville, Georgia, EPA
     Region 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category: Exemplary Biosolids Management Awards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biosolids First Place:
    Lawrence Municipal Wastewater Treatment       Large Operating
     Facility, Lawrence, Kansas, EPA Region 7.     Projects.
    Tahlequah Public Works Authority Compost      Small Operating
     Operation, Tahlequah, Oklahoma, EPA Region    Projects.
     6.
    Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of    Public Acceptance.
     Greater Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, EPA
     Region 5.
Biosolids Second Place:
    Spencer Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant,     Large Operating
     Organic Resource Recycling Program, St.       Projects.
     Peters, Missouri, EPA Region 7.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Category: Pretreatment Program Awards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretreatment First Place:
    Union Sanitary District, Union City,          Greater Than 21
     California, EPA Region 9.                     Significant
                                                   Industrial Users
                                                   (SIUs).
    Sam Hobbs Regional Wastewater Treatment       6-20 SIUs.
     Facility, Casper, Wyoming, EPA Region 8.
    St. Johns County Utilities Pretreatment       0-5 SIUs.
     Program, St. Augustine, Florida, EPA Region
     4.
Pretreatment Second Place:
    Laguna Subregional Reclamation Facility,      Greater Than 21 SIUs.
     Santa Rosa, California, EPA Region 9.
    South Valley Water Reclamation Facility       6-20 SIUs.
     Pretreatment Program, West Jordan, Utah,
     EPA Region 8.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category: Stormwater Management Awards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stormwater First Place:
    County of Sacramento Commercial/Industrial    Industrial Program.
     Stormwater, Compliance Program, Sacramento,
     California, EPA Region 9.
Stormwater First Place:
    Rogue Valley Sewer Services, Central Point,   Municipal Program.
     Oregon, EPA Region 10.
Stormwater Second Place:
    Keep It Clean Partnership--City of Boulder,   Municipal Program.
     Town of Erie, City of Longmont, City of
     Louisville, Town of Superior, and Boulder
     County, Colorado, EPA Region 8.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Category: Combined Sewer Overflow Control Awards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSO First Place:
    Village of Metamora Wastewater Collection     Municipal CSO Program.
     Separation, Metamora, Ohio, EPA Region 5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: October 10, 2008.
Judy Davis,
Acting Director, Office of Wastewater Management.
[FR Doc. E8-24693 Filed 10-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 40)]
[Notices]
[Page 9333-9334]
[DOCID:fr03mr09-142]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket ID PHMSA-97-2995]

Pipeline Safety: Random Drug Testing Rate

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice of minimum annual percentage rate for random drug
testing.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA has determined that the minimum random drug testing rate
for covered employees will remain at 25 percent during calendar year
2009.

DATES: Effective January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley Kastanas, Director, Office of
Substance Abuse Policy, Investigations and Compliance, PHMSA, U.S.
Department of Transportation, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Operators of gas, hazardous liquid, and
carbon dioxide pipelines and operators of liquefied natural gas
facilities must select and test a percentage of covered employees for
random drug testing. Pursuant to 49 CFR 199.105(c)(2), (3), and (4),
the PHMSA Administrator's decision on whether to change the minimum
annual random drug testing rate is based on the reported random drug
test positive rate for the pipeline industry. The data considered by
the Administrator comes from operators' annual submissions of
Management Information System (MIS) reports required by 49 CFR
199.119(a). If the reported random drug test positive rate is less than
one percent, the Administrator may continue the minimum random drug
testing rate at 25 percent. In 2007, the random drug test positive rate
was less than one percent. Therefore, the minimum random drug testing
rate will remain at 25 percent for calendar year 2009.
    In reference to the notice published in 70 FR 20800, PHMSA intends
to publish an Advisory Bulletin specifying the methodology for
reporting MIS contractor data to PHMSA. Therefore, operators must
ensure records on contract employees continue to be maintained.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60117, and
60118; 49 CFR 1.53.

    Issued in Washington, DC on February 23, 2009.
Alan Mayberry,
Director, Engineering and Emergency Support.
[FR Doc. E9-4485 Filed 3-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [ EPA R03 OAR 2005 0499; FRL ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; NOx RACT Determinations for Five Individual Sources AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve revisions to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan ( SIP). The revisions were submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ( PADEP) to establish and require reasonably available control technology ( RACT) for five major sources of nitrogen oxides ( NOx) pursuant to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's ( Pennsylvania or the Commonwealth) SIP approved generic RACT regulations. EPA is proposing to approve these revisions in accordance with the Clean Air Act ( CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before [ insert date 30 days from date of publication].

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA R03 OAR 2005

0499 by one of the following methods:

A. www. regulations. gov. Follow the on line instructions for submitting comments.

B. E mail: morris. makeba@ epa. gov C. Mail: EPA R03 OAR 2005 0499, Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 2 D. Hand Delivery: At the previously listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA R03 OAR 2005 0499. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www. regulations. gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information ( CBI)

or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www. regulations. gov or e mail. The www. regulations. gov, is an " anonymous access" system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e mail comment directly to EPA without going through www. regulations. gov, your e mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption,

and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www. regulations. gov index. 3 Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i. e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.

Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www. regulations. gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection,

Bureau of Air Quality, P. O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LaKeshia N. Robertson, ( 215) 814 2113, or by e mail at robertson. lakeshia@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 21, 2005, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. These SIP revisions consist of source specific operating permits and/ or plan approvals issued by PADEP to establish and require RACT for five sources pursuant to Pennsylvania's SIP approved generic RACT regulations.

I. Background Pursuant to sections 182( b)( 2) and 182( f) of the CAA, Pennsylvania is required to establish and implement RACT for all major VOC and NOx sources. The major source size is determined by its location, the classification of that area and whether it is located in the ozone transport region ( OTR). Under section 184 of the CAA, RACT as specified in sections 182( b)( 2) and 182( f)

applies throughout the OTR. The entire Commonwealth is located within the OTR. Therefore, 4 RACT is applicable statewide in Pennsylvania.

State implementation plan revisions imposing RACT for three classes of VOC sources are required under section 182( b)( 2). The categories are:

( 1) All sources covered by a Control Technique Guideline ( CTG) document issued between November 15, 1990 and the date of attainment;

( 2) All sources covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990; and ( 3) All major non CTG sources.

The Pennsylvania SIP already has approved RACT regulations and requirements for all sources and source categories covered by the CTGs. The Pennsylvania SIP also has approved regulations to require major sources of NOx and additional major sources of VOC emissions ( not covered by a CTG) to implement RACT. These regulations are commonly termed the " generic RACT regulations". A generic RACT regulation is one that does not, itself, specifically define RACT for a source or source categories but instead establishes procedures for imposing case by case RACT determinations. The Commonwealth's SIP approved generic RACT regulations consist of the procedures PADEP uses to establish and impose RACT for subject sources of VOC and NOx.

Pursuant to the SIP approved generic RACT rules, PADEP imposes RACT on each subject source in an enforceable document, usually a Plan Approval ( PA) or Operating Permit ( OP). The Commonwealth then submits these PAs and OPs to EPA for approval as source specific SIP revisions. EPA reviews these SIP revisions to ensure that the Pennsylvania DEP has determined and imposed RACT in accordance with the provisions of the SIP approved generic RACT rules. 5 It must be noted that the Commonwealth has adopted and is implementing additional " post RACT requirements" to reduce seasonal NOx emissions in the form of a NOx cap and trade regulation,

25 Pa Code Chapters 121 and 123, based upon a model rule developed by the States in the OTR.

That regulation was approved as SIP revision on June 6, 2000 ( 65 FR 35842). Pennsylvania has also adopted 25 Pa Code Chapter 145 to satisfy Phase I of the NOx SIP call. That regulation was approved as a SIP revision on August 21, 2001 ( 66 FR 43795). Federal approval of a sourcespecific RACT determination for a major source of NOx in no way relieves that source from any applicable requirements found in 25 PA Code Chapters 121, 123 and 145.

II. Summary of the SIP Revisions The following table identifies the sources and the individual plan approvals ( PAs) and operating permits ( OPs) which are the subject of this rulemaking.

PENNSYLVANIA  VOC AND NOx RACT DETERMINATIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL SOURCES SOURCE'S NAME COUNTY Plan Approval ( PA #) Operating Permit ( OP #) SOURCE TYPE " MAJOR SOURCE" POLLUTANT Pennsylvania Electric Company Indiana 32 000 059 Two boilers and four diesel generators NOx The Harrisburg Authority Dauphin 22 2007 Two identical independent mass burn refuse combustion/ steam generation units NOx 6 Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. Perry 50 02001 IC engine and two hp gas turbines NOx Graybec Lime, Inc. Centre OP 14 0004 Three rotary lime kilns and two waste oil furnaces NOx Techneglas, Inc. Luzerne 40 0009A Three glass melting furnaces NOx Interested parties are advised that copies of Pennsylvania's SIP submittals for these sources,

including the actual PAs and OPs imposing RACT, PADEP's evaluation memoranda and the sources' RACT proposals ( referenced in PADEP's evaluation memoranda) are included and may be viewed in their entirety in both the electronic and hard copy versions of the docket for this final rule.

As previously stated, all documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www. regulations. gov index. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www. regulations. gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P. O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

EPA is approving these RACT SIP submittals because PADEP established and imposed these RACT requirements in accordance with the criteria set forth in its SIP approved generic RACT regulations applicable to these sources. In accordance with its SIP approved generic RACT rule, the Commonwealth has also imposed record keeping, monitoring, and testing requirements on these sources sufficient to determine compliance with the applicable RACT determinations. 7 III. Proposed Action EPA is approving the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by PADEP on November 21,

2005 to establish and require NOx RACT for five sources pursuant to the Commonwealth's SIPapproved generic RACT regulations. EPA is soliciting public comments on this proposed rule to approve these source specific RACT determinations established and imposed by PADEP in accordance with the criteria set forth in its SIP approved generic RACT regulations applicable to these sources. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a " significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, " Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" ( 66 Fed.

Reg. 28355 ( May 22, 2001)). This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( Public Law 104 4). This proposed rule also does not 8 have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 ( 65 FR 67249,

November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 ( 64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards ( VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 ( 61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,

and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 ( 53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the " Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and 9 Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings" issued under the executive order.

This proposed rule, to approve five source specific RACT determinations, established and imposed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pursuant to its SIP approved generic RACT regulations does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.). 10 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

/ s/ ___________________________ ____________________________ Dated: February 15, 2006 Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72834-72836]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29006]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2013 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-1019; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-038-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; SOCATA Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
SOCATA Model TBM 700 airplanes. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as landing gear actuator rod and piston becoming unscrewed
during operation and the landing gear actuator ball joint becoming
uncrimped. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 21,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
SOCATA--Direction des Services--65921 Tarbes Cedex 9--France; telephone
+33 (0) 62 41 7300, fax +33 (0) 62 41 76 54, or for North America:
SOCATA NORTH AMERICA, 7501 South Airport Road, North Perry Airport,
Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (954)
964-4141; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://mysocata.com. You may review this referenced service information at the
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-1019;
Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-038-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD No.: 2013-0227, dated September 23, 2013 (referred to after this as
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    During maintenance check, possible unscrewing of rod and piston
during operation was detected on a landing gear actuator.
Investigation showed that this was likely caused by maintenance
operation not conforming with the procedure described in the SOCATA
maintenance manual.
    Moreover, following in-service landing gear collapse, uncrimping
of a right hand main landing gear (MLG) actuator ball joint was
detected. Investigation revealed a manufacturing non-conformity of
some actuator rod end assemblies.
    These conditions, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
MLG or nose landing gear (NLG) failure during landing or roll-out
and consequent damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, SOCATA issued
Service Bulletin (SB) 70-197-32 to require a one-time inspection of
the landing gear actuator piston/rod and SB 70-206-32 to require a
one-time inspection of the landing gear actuator ball joint
centering and, depending on findings, accomplishment of corrective
actions.
    SOCATA also developed modification 70-0334-32, embodied in
production to secure rod/piston assembly through addition of a pin
and to reduce retraction/extension indication failure through
improvement of switch kinematics. These modified actuators have a
new part number (P/N).
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires a one-time
inspection of the landing gear actuators piston/rod and ball joint
centering and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable
corrective actions.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-
2013-1019.

Relevant Service Information

    SOCATA has issued DAHER-SOCATA Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-
197, dated April 2013; and DAHER-SOCATA Mandatory Service

Bulletin SB 70-206, dated April 2013. The actions described in this
service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 495 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $84,150, or $170 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 3 work-hours for each main landing gear and 3 work-hours for
the nose landing gear, and require parts costing $100 for each rod and
assembly. We have no way of determining the number of products that may
need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) 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 Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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 AD:

SOCATA: Docket No. FAA-2013-1019; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-
038-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 21, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to SOCATA TBM 700 airplanes, all serial numbers,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing
Gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as the landing gear
actuator rod and piston becoming unscrewed during operation and the
landing gear actuator ball joint becoming uncrimped. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct discrepancies in the pistons/rods and
the ball joint centering of the nose landing gear and main landing
gear, which could result in landing gear failure and lead to damage
of the airplane and occupant injury.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through
(f)(4) of this AD on any airplane with the landing gear actuators
part number (P/N) T700A3230050000, P/N T700A323005000000, or P/N
T700A323005300000 installed:
    (1) Within the next 8 months after the effective date of this
AD, perform a detailed visual inspection (DVI) of the pistons and
rods of the nose landing gear (NLG) and left hand (LH) and right
hand (RH) main landing gear (MLG) actuators and measure the distance
following the Accomplishment Instructions paragraphs (A)(1) through
(A)(4) in DAHER-SOCATA Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-197, dated
April 2013.
    (2) Within the next 8 months after the effective date of this
AD, perform a DVI of the ball joint centering of the NLG and LH and
RH MLG actuators and measure the ball joint mismatch following the
Accomplishment Instructions paragraphs (A) through (C) in DAHER-
SOCATA Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-206, dated April 2013.
    (3) If during any inspection required in paragraphs (f)(1) or
(f)(2) of this AD any discrepancy is found, before further flight,
replace the affected actuator or rod end assembly if applicable with
an airworthy part following the Accomplishment Instructions in
paragraph (A)(5) through (A)(10) and paragraph (B) of DAHER-SOCATA
Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-197, dated April 2013; and/or
paragraph (D) and (E) of DAHER-SOCATA Mandatory Service Bulletin SB
70-206, dated April 2013.
    (4) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install on any
airplane a landing gear actuator P/N T700A3230050000, P/N
T700A323005000000, or P/N T700A323005300000, unless it is found to
be in compliance with the inspection requirements of paragraphs
(f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD. The landing gear actuator must be
installed when doing these inspections.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your

appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards
District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2013-0227, dated September 23, 2013 for related information. You may
examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2013-1019. For
service information related to this AD, contact SOCATA--Direction
des Services--65921 Tarbes Cedex 9--France; telephone +33 (0) 62 41
7300, fax +33 (0) 62 41 76 54, or for North America: SOCATA NORTH
AMERICA, 7501 South Airport Road, North Perry Airport, Pembroke
Pines, Florida 33023; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (954) 964-
4141; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://mysocata.com. You may review this referenced service information at
the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on November 27, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-29006 Filed 12-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82039-82040]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32717]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2010-1005]

National Maritime Security Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee (NMSAC) will
meet in Washington, DC to discuss various issues relating to national
maritime security. This meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The Committee will meet on Wednesday, January 19, 2011 from 9
a.m. to 4 p.m. and Thursday, January 20, 2011 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.
This meeting may close early if all business is finished. Written
material and requests to make oral presentations should reach the Coast
Guard on or before January 10, 2011. Requests to have a copy of your
material distributed to each member of the committee should reach the
Coast Guard on or before January 10, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The Committee will meet at the American Bureau of Shipping,
1400 Key Blvd, Suite 800, Arlington, VA 22209. Additionally, this
meeting will be broadcast via a web enabled interactive online format
and teleconference. Send written material and requests to make oral
presentations to Mr. Ryan Owens, Assistant Designated Federal Officer
(ADFO) of the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee, 2100 2nd
Street SW., Stop 7581; Washington, DC 20593-7581. You may also e-mail
material to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>This notice may be viewed in our
online docket, USCG-2010-1005, at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mr. Ryan Owens, ADFO of NMSAC,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).

Agenda of Public Meeting

    The agenda for the Committee meeting is as follows:
    (1) Port Security Grants.
    (2) Global Supply Chain Security Policy Efforts.
    (3) Update to the Maritime Infrastructure Recovery Plan and the
Maritime Transportation System Security Recommendations.
    (4) Results of Maritime Transportation Security Act Tasking.

Procedural

    This meeting is open to the public and will also be conducted via
an online meeting format. Please note that the public portion of the
meeting may close early if all business is finished. Seating is very
limited, members of the public wishing to attend should register with
Mr. Ryan Owens, ADFO of NMSAC, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>no later than January 10, 2011. To participate
via teleconference, dial<PHONE_NUMBER>, the pass code to join is
3038389. Additionally, if you would like to participate in
this meeting via the online Web format, please log onto https://connect.hsin.gov/uscgnmsac/ and follow the online instructions to
register for this meeting. Members of the public may make oral
presentations during the public portion of the meeting. If you would
like to make an oral presentation at the public portion of the meeting,
please notify the ADFO no later than Monday, January 10, 2011.

Written material for distribution at a meeting should reach the Coast
Guard no later than Monday, January 10, 2011. If you would like a copy
of your material distributed to each member of the committee in advance
of a meeting, please submit 25 copies to the ADFO no later than Monday,
January 10, 2011.

Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
the ADFO as soon as possible.

    Dated: December 21, 2010.
R. F. Owens,
U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Port and Facility Activities, Alternate
Designated Federal Official, NMSAC.
[FR Doc. 2010-32717 Filed 12-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P