[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 209 (Wednesday, October 28, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68250-68252]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23181]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0611]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Boat Parade; San Diego, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local
regulation (SLR) on the waters of San Diego Bay, California to provide
for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels,
and general users of the waterway during a boat parade. This SLR
temporarily encompasses all navigable waters, from surface to bottom,
on a pre-determined course in the northern portion of the San Diego
Main Ship Channel from Shelter Island Basin, past the Embarcadero,
crossing the federal navigable channel and ending off of Coronado
Island. This SLR also establishes a designated section of the
commercial anchorage area as a First Amendment area to be used at the
discretion of the Captain of the Port, or his designated
representative, as a spectator area.

DATES: This rule is effective from noon through 3:30 p.m. on November
1, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2020-0611 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant John Santorum, Waterways Management, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable due to the short
time between the Coast Guard becoming aware of the event on September
22, 2020, and the scheduled event occurring on November 1, 2020. The
marine event sponsor of this boat parade is expecting to draw a high
concentration of vessels to the San Diego Bay area along the proposed
parade route. Traditionally, the San Diego Bay area serves as a major
thoroughfare for commercial traffic, naval operations, ferry routes,
and a number of other recreational uses. The Coast Guard is
establishing this SLR to minimize impacts on this congested waterway.
We must establish this SLR by November 1, 2020 to ensure the safety of
individuals, property, and the marine environment and we do not have
sufficient time to request and respond to comments.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to public interest because prompt action is
needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the
location, size and complexity of the boat parade that is planned to
take place on November 1, 2020.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70041. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector San Diego has determined
that potential hazards associated with the proposed parade will be a
safety concern for anyone within the vicinity of the parade route. This
rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, spectators, and the
marine environment in the navigable waters of the San Diego Bay in the
vicinity of the marine event during the enforcement period of this
rule.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes an SLR from noon until 3:30 p.m. on November
1, 2020. The SLR will cover all navigable waters on a pre-determined
course in the northern portion of the San Diego Main Ship Channel from
Shelter Island Basin, past the Embarcadero, crossing the federal
navigable channel and ending off of Coronado Island. This SLR will also
temporarily establish a 200-yard radius within the commercial anchorage
as a First Amendment area to be used as authorized by the Captain of
the Port, or his designated representative. The First Amendment area
will encompass all navigable waters, from surface to bottom, within 200
yards of 32[deg]43'11.0'' N, 117[deg]10'59.8'' W, within the commercial
vessel anchorage.

    The duration of the SLR is intended to protect personnel, vessels,
spectators, and the marine environment in these navigable waters
before, during, and after the event is scheduled to occur. During the
enforcement period, persons and vessels are prohibited from anchoring,
blocking, loitering, or impeding within this regulated area unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the SLR. The Coast Guard will
publish a Local Notice to Mariners and will issue a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 that details the vessel
restrictions of the regulated area.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
SLR may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above,
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel
owner or operator.
    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
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one
of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have
a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves an
SLR lasting less than four hours that will monitor entry to the SLR
area for the duration of the enforcement period to cover before, during
and after the parade has concluded. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels. All non-participant vessels or
persons engaged in protest activity will be directed to the commercial
vessel anchorage if they wish to remain in the regulated area.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  100.T11-039 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T11-039  Boat Parade, San Diego, CA

    (a) Regulated areas. The regulations in this section apply to the
following areas:
    (1) Parade Area: All navigable waters, from surface to bottom, on a
pre-determined course in the northern portion of the San Diego Main
Ship Channel from Shelter Island Basin, past the Embarcadero, crossing
the federal navigable channel and ending off of Coronado Island.
    (2) First Amendment Area: All navigable waters, from surface to
bottom, within 200 yards of 32[deg]43'11.0'' N, 117[deg]10'59.8'' W,
within the commercial vessel anchorage.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander,
including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer
operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Sector San Diego
(COTP) in the enforcement of the regulations in this section.
    Participant means all persons and vessels registered with the event
sponsor as a participants in the parade.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All non-participants are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area described in paragraph (a) of this section unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector San Diego or their
designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by calling the Sector San Diego JHOC at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Those in the regulated area, including participants, must comply with
all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the
designated representative.
    (3) All non-participants, including those engaged in protest
activity, may be directed by a designated representative to the First
Amendment Area described in section (a)(2) of this section, where they
must remain during the effective period unless otherwise authorized or
directed.
    (4) The COTP will provide notice of the regulated areas through
advanced notice via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and by on-scene
designated representatives.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from noon
through 3:30 p.m. on Sunday, November 1, 2020.

    Dated: October 8, 2020.
T.J. Barelli,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2020-23181 Filed 10-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 120 (Friday, June 21, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37497-37498]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14861]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0805; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-117-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
proposed to rescind an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that
applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -
400ER series airplanes. The proposed AD action would have rescinded the
existing AD, which requires an inspection to determine if certain motor
operated valve (MOV) actuators for the fuel tanks are installed, and
related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. Since the
proposed AD action was issued, we have determined that the proposed AD
action does not adequately address the safety concerns. Accordingly,
the proposed AD action is withdrawn.

ADDRESSES: 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 AD action, the proposed rule (77
FR 47329, August 8, 2012), the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office
(phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management Facility, 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: Rebel Nichols, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: (425) 917-
6509; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to rescind AD 2009-22-13, Amendment 39-16066 (74 FR
55755, October 29, 2009). That AD applies to the specified products.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 8, 2012 (77 FR
47329). That NPRM proposed to rescind AD 2009-22-13, which requires an
inspection to determine if certain MOV actuators for the fuel tanks are
installed, and related investigative and corrective actions if
necessary. That AD resulted from fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. The proposed actions were intended to prevent an unsafe
condition from being introduced on airplanes affected by AD 2009-22-13.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in considering
the proposal (77 FR 47329, August 8, 2012) to rescind AD 2009-22-13,
Amendment 39-16066 (74 FR 55755, October 29, 2009). The following
presents relevant comments received on the proposal and the FAA's
response.

Requests To Clarify ``Different Unsafe Condition''

    UPS and Boeing requested clarification of the different unsafe
condition introduced by the actions required by AD 2009-22-13,
Amendment 39-16066 (74 FR 55755, October 29, 2009). UPS stated there is
no clear direction on which unsafe condition would have a greater
impact to the continued safe operation of the airplane, and
subsequently, it is not clear what further action should be done to
address airplanes on which the requirements of AD 2009-22-13 have been
accomplished.
    We agree that clarification of the different unsafe condition is
necessary. AD 2009-22-13, Amendment 39-16066 (74 FR 55755, October 29,
2009), addresses the potential for an electrical current to flow
through certain MOV actuators into the fuel tank. The new MOV actuators
are required by AD 2009-22-13 for 11 to 13 locations (depending on
configuration) on the airplane, and that AD addresses an unsafe
condition related to Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR
88'' (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001), Amendment 21-78, and subsequent
Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). However, the new MOV actuators have been
found to have a risk of latent failure. At three of the 11 to 13
locations, this actuator failure could result in a different unsafe
condition--an inability to shut off fuel flow to an APU or engine
during an engine fire. This latent failure is not a safety risk in the
other eight to ten locations.
    We have determined that AD 2009-22-13, Amendment 39-16066 (74 FR
55755, October 29, 2009), should not be rescinded, but should continue
to require actions that address SFAR 88-related safety. Because AD
2009-22-13 does address a significant safety risk, it is not in the
interest of safety to rescind that AD. For the new MOV actuators, we
are considering further rulemaking to address the three locations where
a latent failure of the actuator could result in a failure to shut off
fuel flow during an engine fire.

FAA's Conclusions

    Upon further consideration, we have determined that the NPRM (77 FR
47329, August 8, 2012) does not adequately address the safety concern.
Accordingly, the NPRM is withdrawn.
    Withdrawal of the NPRM (77 FR 47329, August 8, 2012) does not
preclude the FAA from issuing another related action or commit the FAA
to any course of action in the future.

Regulatory Impact

    Since this action only withdraws an NPRM (77 FR 47329, August 8,
2012), it is neither a proposed nor a final rule and therefore is not
covered under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26,
1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Withdrawal

    Accordingly, we withdraw the NPRM, Docket No. FAA-2012-0805,
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-117-AD, which was published in the
Federal Register on August 8, 2012 (77 FR 47329).

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 13, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-14861 Filed 6-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 134 (Tuesday, July 14, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40915-40917]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17061]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0345; FRL-9929-58-Region 9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South
Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a revision to the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from graphic arts facilities. We are approving
a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air
Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on September 14, 2015 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 13, 2015. If we
receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-
2015-0345, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments 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 Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. 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: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business

hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vanessa Graham, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4120<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this action with the date that
it was adopted by SCAQMD and submitted by the California Air Resource
Board (CARB).

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title            Amended         Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD..............................            1130   Graphic Arts...........        05/02/14         11/06/14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 18, 2014, EPA determined that the submittal for SCAQMD
Rule 1130 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V,
which must be met before formal EPA review.
    We approved an earlier version of Rules 1130 into the SIP on
September 13, 2000 (65 FR 55201).

B. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog and fine particulate
matter (PM2.5), which harm human health and the environment.
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that
control VOC emissions. Rule 1130 limits VOC emissions from graphic arts
processes, largely by establishing work practice requirements and
limiting the amount of VOC in graphic arts coatings, inks and solvents.
The amendments to Rule 1130 were submitted to satisfy Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) Requirements under CAA sections
172(c)(1) and 182(b).
    EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about
this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action.

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

    SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not
interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section
110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in
nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193).
    SCAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified as extreme
under both the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS and a PM2.5
nonattainment area classified as moderate under the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. 40 CFR 81.305. CAA section 172(c)(1) requires
nonattainment areas to implement all reasonably available control
measures (RACM), including such reductions in emissions from existing
sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a
minimum, of RACT, as expeditiously as practicable. CAA section
189(a)(1)(C) also requires implementation of RACM in moderate
PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Additional control measures for
graphic arts processes may be required pursuant to CAA section
172(c)(1) if both: (1) Additional measures are reasonably available;
and (2) these additional reasonably available measures will advance
attainment of one or more ozone standards in the area or contribute to
reasonable further progress (RFP) when considered collectively (see 80
FR 12264, 12282). In addition, SIP rules must require RACT for each
category of sources covered by a CTG document as well as each VOC major
source in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above
(see CAA section 182(b)(2)). Since Rule 1130 regulates sources subject
to a CTG in an extreme nonattainment area, it must implement RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations'' (``the Bluebook,'' U.S. EPA, May 25, 1988; revised
January 11, 1990).
2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies'' (``the Little Bluebook'', EPA Region 9, August 21,
2001).
3. ``Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for Offset Lithographic
Printing and Letterpress Printing'', September 2006 (EPA 453/R-06-
002).
4. ``Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for Flexible Package
Printing'', September 2006 (EPA 453/R-06-003).

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. We will
act separately on the State's RACM demonstrations for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS and 2008 ozone NAAQS the based on an evaluation
of the control measures submitted as a whole and their overall
potential to advance the applicable attainment dates for ozone. The TSD
has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agency modifies the rule, but are not currently
the basis for rule disapproval.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rule. If we
receive adverse comments by August 13, 2015, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective
without further notice on September 14,

2015. This will incorporate the rule into the federally enforceable
SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
SCAQMD rule described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble for more information).]

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 14, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed
Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 9, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(457)(i)(E) to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (457) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (E) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 1130, ``Graphic Arts,'' amended on May 2, 2014.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-17061 Filed 7-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 82 (Friday, April 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26300-26301]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09045]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10669-01-R6]

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act; Modified Proposed Administrative Settlement Agreement for Recovery
of Response Costs; ``Delta Shipyard'' Superfund Site in Houma,
Terrebonne Parish, LA

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of modified proposed settlement; request for public
comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (``CERCLA''), notice is hereby given
that a modified proposed CERCLA Section 122(h)(1) Cashout Settlement
Agreement for Ability to Pay Peripheral Parties (``Proposed
Agreement'') associated with the ``Delta Shipyard'' Superfund Site in
Houma, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana (``Site'') was executed by the
Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') and is now subject to public
comment, after which EPA may modify or withdraw its consent if comments
received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the
Proposed Agreement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The
modified Proposed Agreement would resolve potential EPA claims under
Section 107(a) of CERCLA, against Dean Services West, LLC (``Settling
Party'') for EPA response costs at the Delta Shipyard Superfund Site
located in the Southeastern section of Houma, Louisiana. The modified
settlement is $350,000.00 and was based

on an updated Ability to Pay Analysis, which concluded the settling
party shall make payment for EPA response costs in 3 yearly
installments. For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of
this notice, EPA will receive electronic comments relating to the
Proposed Agreement. EPA's response to any comments received will be
available for public inspection by request. Please see the ADDRESSES
section of this notice for special instructions in effect due to
impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 30, 2023.

ADDRESSES: As a result of impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic,
requests for documents and submission of comments must be via
electronic mail except as provided below. The Proposed Agreement and
additional background information relating to the Proposed Agreement
are available for public inspection upon request by contacting EPA
Assistant Regional Counsel Amy Salinas at [email protected]. Comments
must be submitted via electronic mail to this same email address and
should reference the ``Delta Shipyard'' Superfund Site, Modified
Proposed Settlement Agreement'' and ``EPA CERCLA Docket No. 06-03-19.''
Persons without access to electronic mail may call Ms. Salinas at (215)
665-8063 to make alternative arrangements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Salinas at EPA by phone (214) 665-
8063 or email at: [email protected].

Earthea Nance,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2023-09045 Filed 4-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21288-21290]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07985]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3820; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-024-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Various Restricted Category Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
various restricted category helicopters. This proposed AD would require
cleaning and visually inspecting certain main rotor (M/R) blades and,
depending on the outcome of the inspections, repairing or replacing the
M/R blades. This proposed AD is prompted by a report of an M/R blade
with multiple fatigue cracks around the blade retention bolt hole. The
proposed actions are intended to detect a crack in the M/R blade, and
prevent failure of the M/R blade and subsequent loss of helicopter
control.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 10, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3820 or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the economic evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact
Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, Texas 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Harrison, Project Manager,
Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort
Worth, Texas 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    We propose to adopt a new AD for Model TH-1F, UH-1B, UH-1F, UH-1H,
and UH-1P restricted category helicopters. This proposed AD would
require repetitively cleaning and visually inspecting the M/R blades
for a crack, corrosion, an edge void, loose or damaged adhesion, and an
edge delamination. Depending on the results of the inspections, this
proposed AD would require either repairing or replacing the M/R blades.
    This proposed AD is prompted by a Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.
(BHTI) evaluation of an M/R blade installed on a Model UH-1H helicopter
that had multiple fatigue cracks around the blade retention bolt hole.
The cracks resulted from a void between the lower grip plate and the
grip pad. A ``substantial'' void also was found at the outboard doubler
tip on the lower blade surface. A different part-numbered M/R blade of
the same type installed on the Model UH-1H helicopter may also be
installed on Model TH-1F, UH-1B, UH-1F, and UH-1P helicopters. The
proposed actions are intended to detect a crack in an M/R blade, and
prevent failure of the M/R blade, and subsequent loss of helicopter
control.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant
information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type
designs.

Related Service Information

    Bell Helicopter issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. UH-1H-13-
09, dated January 14, 2013, for the Model UH-1H helicopter. ASB No. UH-
1H-13-09 specifies a one-time visual inspection, within 10 hours time-
in-service (TIS), of the lower grip pad and upper and lower grip plates
for cracks, edge voids, and loose or damaged adhesive squeeze-out. ASB
No. UH-1H-13-09 also specifies a repetitive and more detailed visual
inspection, daily and at every 150 hours TIS, of the lower grip pad,
upper and lower grip plates, and all upper and the lower doublers for
cracks, corrosion, edge voids, and loose or damaged adhesive squeeze-
out.
    Bell Helicopter Textron also issued ASB No. 204-75-1 for Model 204B
helicopters and ASB No. 205-75-5 for Model 205A-1 helicopters, both
Revision C and both dated April 25, 1979. ASB No. 204-75-1 and ASB No.
205-75-5 call for visually inspecting the M/R blades during each daily
inspection and repetitively washing the blades and applying WD-40. ASB
No. 204-75-1 and ASB No. 205-75-5 also provide instructions for
repetitively inspecting the blades every 1,000 hours of operation or
every 12 months, whichever occurs first, or within 150 hours or 30
days, whichever occurs first, if the blades have more than 1,000 hours
of operation or have been in service more than 12 months. While ASB No.
204-75-1 and ASB No. 205-75-5 do not apply to the helicopters that are
the subject of this proposed AD, they do apply to the affected M/R
blades.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require within 25 hours TIS or 2 weeks,
whichever occurs first, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25
hours TIS or 2 weeks, whichever occurs first, cleaning the upper and
lower surfaces of each M/R blade from an area starting at the butt end
of the blade to three inches outboard of the doublers. The proposed AD
also would require visually inspecting various M/R parts for a crack or
corrosion using a 3X or higher power magnifying glass and a light.
    If there is a crack, corrosion, an edge void, loose or damaged
adhesive squeeze-out, or an edge delamination before further flight,
this proposed AD would require repairing the M/R blade or replacing it
with an airworthy M/R blade, depending on the condition's severity.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    ASB No. UH-1H-13-09 specifies a one-time inspection and then a
second repetitive inspection daily and at every 150 hours TIS, and ASB
No. 204-75-1 and ASB 205-75-5 call for visually inspecting the M/R
blades daily and every 1,000 hours TIS or 12 months, whichever occurs
first. The proposed AD would require all inspections at intervals not
to exceed 25 hours TIS or two weeks, whichever occurs first. This
proposed AD contains more detailed inspection requirements and a more
specific inspection area than the instructions in ASB No. UH-1H-13-09.
Lastly, ASB No. UH-1H-13-09 applies to Model UH-1H helicopters with M/R
blade P/N 204-011-250-113, ASB No. 204-75-1 applies to Model 204B
helicopters with M/R blade P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> (all dash numbers), and ASB
No. 205-75-5 applies to Model 205A-1 helicopters with M/R blade P/N
204-011-0250 (all dash numbers). This proposed AD would apply to Model
TH-1F, UH-1B, UH-1F, UH-1H, and UH-1P helicopters with M/R blade P/N
204-011-250-005 or 204-011-250-113.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 607 helicopters of
U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 a work-hour. Based on
these estimates, we expect the following costs:
     Cleaning and performing all inspections of a set of M/R
blades (2 per helicopter) would require a total of \1/2\ work-hour. No
parts would be needed. At an estimated 24 inspections a year, the cost
would be $1,032 per helicopter and $626,424 for the U.S. fleet.
     Replacing an M/R blade would require 12 work hours and
parts would cost $90,656, for a total cost of $91,676 per blade.

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, 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 to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.

    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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):

Various Restricted Category Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2015-3820;
Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-024-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model TH-1F, UH-1B, UH-1F, UH-1H, and UH-1P
helicopters with a main rotor (M/R) blade, part number 204-011-250-
005 or 204-011-250-113, installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in an M/R blade,
which could result in failure of the M/R blade and subsequent loss
of helicopter control.

(c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 10, 2016.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 2 weeks, whichever
occurs first, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS
or 2 weeks, whichever occurs first, clean the upper and lower
exposed surfaces of each M/R blade from an area starting at the butt
end of the blade to three inches outboard of the doublers. Using a
3X or higher power magnifying glass and a light, inspect as follows:
    (i) Visually inspect the exposed area of the lower grip pad and
upper and lower grip plates of each M/R blade for a crack and any
corrosion.
    (ii) On the upper and lower exposed surfaces of each M/R blade
from blade stations 24.5 to 35 for the entire chord width, visually
inspect each layered doubler and blade skin for a crack and any
corrosion. Pay particular attention for any cracking in a doubler or
skin near or at the same blade station as the blade retention bolt
hole (blade station 28).
    (iii) Visually inspect the exposed areas of each bond line at
the edges of the lower grip pad, upper and lower grip plates, and
each layered doubler (bond lines) on the upper and lower surfaces of
each M/R blade for the entire length and chord width for an edge
void, any corrosion, loose or damaged adhesive squeeze-out, and an
edge delamination. Pay particular attention to any crack in the
paint finish that follows the outline of a grip pad, grip plate, or
doubler, and to any loose or damaged adhesive squeeze-out, as these
may be the indication of an edge void.
    (2) If there is a crack, any corrosion, an edge void, loose or
damaged adhesive squeeze-out, or an edge delamination during any
inspection in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, before further flight, do
the following:
    (i) If there is a crack in a grip pad or any grip plate or
doubler, replace the M/R blade with an airworthy M/R blade.
    (ii) If there is a crack in the M/R blade skin that is within
maximum repair damage limits, repair the M/R blade. If the crack
exceeds maximum repair damage limits, replace the M/R blade with an
airworthy M/R blade.
    (iii) If there is any corrosion within maximum repair damage
limits, repair the M/R blade. If the corrosion exceeds maximum
repair damage limits, replace the M/R blade with an airworthy M/R
blade.
    (iv) If there is an edge void in the grip pad or in a grip plate
or doubler, determine the length and depth using a feeler gauge.
Repair the M/R blade if the edge void is within maximum repair
damage limits, or replace the M/R blade with an airworthy M/R blade.
    (v) If there is an edge void in a grip plate or doubler near the
outboard tip, tap inspect the affected area to determine the size
and shape of the void. Repair the M/R blade if the edge void is
within maximum repair damage limits, or replace the M/R blade with
an airworthy M/R blade.
    (vi) If there is any loose or damaged adhesive squeeze-out along
any of the bond lines, trim or scrape away the adhesive without
damaging the adjacent surfaces or parent material of the M/R blade.
Determine if there is an edge void or any corrosion by lightly
sanding the trimmed area smooth using 280 or finer grit paper. If
there is no edge void or corrosion, refinish the sanded area.
    (vii) If there is an edge delamination along any of the bond
lines or a crack in the paint finish, determine if there is an edge
void or a crack in the grip pad, grip plate, doubler, or skin by
removing paint from the affected area by lightly sanding in a span-
wise direction using 180-220 grit paper. If there are no edge voids
and no cracks, refinish the sanded area.
    (viii) If any parent material is removed during any sanding or
trimming in paragraphs (e)(2)(vi) or (e)(2)(vii) of this AD, repair
the M/R blade if the damage is within maximum repair damage limits,
or replace the M/R blade with an airworthy M/R blade.

(f) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Charles Harrison,
Project Manager, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, Texas 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Additional Information

    Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. UH-1H-13-09,
dated January 14, 2013, and Bell Helicopter Textron ASB No. 204-75-1
and ASB 205-75-5, both Revision C and both dated April 25, 1979,
which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional
information about the subject of this AD. For service information
identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O.
Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (817)
280-6466; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review a
copy of information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth,
Texas 76177.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6210, Main Rotor
Blades.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 29, 2016.
James A. Grigg,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-07985 Filed 4-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 67 (Monday, April 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20999-21000]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08097]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69276; File No. SR-DTC-2013-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Modify Its Practice
Regarding the Collection of Participants' Required Participants Fund
Deposits

April 2, 2013.
    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 20, 2013, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have
been prepared primarily by DTC. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change is to modify DTC's Settlement Services
Guide, as described below.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for,
the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, DTC 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. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Participants Fund
    Pursuant to Rule 4 of its Rules, By-laws, Organization Certificate
(``DTC Rules''), DTC maintains a fund funded by its Participants, which
in addition to being a liquidity resource, is available to satisfy any
uninsured loss incurred by DTC, including a loss resulting from a
Participant's failure to settle its transactions (``Participants
Fund'').\4\ Each Participant's required deposit to the Participant's
Fund (``Required Participants Fund Deposit'') is calculated daily
pursuant to an established formula.\5\ While the minimum deposit is
$10,000, each Participant is required to make a deposit to the
Participants Fund based upon a formula that takes into account the
Participant's six largest intraday net debit peaks over a rolling sixty
business-day period.\6\ If the Participant's newly calculated Required
Participants Fund Deposit is greater than its prior day's Required
Participants Fund Deposit, and the difference thereof (i) equals or
exceeds $500,000, and (ii) represents 25 percent or more of the newly
calculated required fund deposit (``Threshold Amount and Percentage''),
the Participant must deposit the difference in the Participants Fund
within two business days,\7\ to the extent any excess amount of the
Participant's Actual Participants Fund Deposit does not already satisfy
the new requirement.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See DTC Rules (http://dtcc.com/legal/rules_proc/dtc_rules.pdf).
    \5\ Id., Rule 4(a).
    \6\ See DTC Settlement Service Guide (http://dtcc.com/downloads/products/learning/Settlement.pdf). DTC may also require an
additional deposit to the Participants Fund in the event that DTC
becomes concerned with a Participant's financial soundness. See DTC
Rules, supra note 4, Rule 9(A). Separately, a Participant may make a
voluntary deposit to the Participants Fund (``Voluntary Participants
Fund Deposit'') in excess of the amount required. See id., Rule
4(c). These provisions are not impacted by the proposed rule change.
    \7\ See DTC Settlement Service Guide, supra note 6.
    \8\ See DTC Rules, supra note 4, Rule 4(b). ``Actual
Participants Fund Deposit'' means the actual amount the Participant
has deposited to the Participants Fund, including both its Required
Participants Fund Deposit and any Voluntary Participants Fund
Deposit. Id., Rule 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under current procedures, as set forth in DTC's Settlement Services
Guide, Participants must deposit any increased requirement to the
Required Participants Fund Deposit that meets the Threshold Amount and
Percentage within two business days.\9\ Increases in amounts less than
the Threshold Amount and Percentage are collected once per month for
all Participants.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See DTC Settlement Service Guide, supra note 6.
    \10\ See id. (After settlement on the last business day of each
month, DTC calculates each Participant's requirement. Each
participant is notified of their new requirement on the first
business day of the month. If a Participant's requirement has
increased beyond the value they currently have on deposit at DTC,
this deficit must be deposited with DTC within two business days.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to enhance its liquidity and risk coverage, DTC is
proposing to accelerate the collection of Participants' Required
Participants Fund Deposits from two business days to the same day the
Participant is notified of the requirement. Under the proposal, for
both the daily and monthly calculations that trigger collections, as
described above, increased deposit requirements will be collected by
DTC on a same-day basis, instead of within two business days.
Proposed Changes to Rule Text
    If approved, DTC will revise the text of its Settlement Services
Guide to provide that where a Participant's calculated Required
Participants Fund Deposit meets the Threshold Amount and Percentage,
the increased amount must (to the extent any excess amount of the
Participant's Actual Participants Fund Deposit does not already satisfy
the new requirement) be deposited with DTC on the same business day as
(i) the calculation of the increase, and (ii) a report or other
notification of the change is made available to the Participant.
    As mentioned above, in order to harmonize the Participants Fund
collection processes, monthly increases will also be collected on a
same-day basis and language will be added to the Settlement Service
Guide in this regard. In addition, language will be added to the
Settlement Service Guide to clarify that the relevant Guide provisions
shall apply only to the calculation and collection of DTC Participants
Fund deposits, as described in the Guide, and do not supersede or limit
any provisions of the DTC Rules or any rights of DTC in accordance with
applicable law and DTC's Rules and Procedures, including but not
limited to transactions in securities and money payments.
    Finally, DTC will make certain clarifying and technical changes to
the language as set forth in the ``Participants Fund'' section of its
Settlement Service Guide. Changes include, but are not limited to: (i)
Updating the description of the purpose of the Participants Fund, (ii)
updating the use of defined terms, such as ``Participant,'' and (iii)
updating and adding subject headings.

Statutory Basis
    DTC believes the proposed rule change, as described above, is
consistent with the requirements of the Act, specifically Section
17A(b)(3)(F),\11\ and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to DTC, because the change supports DTC's ability to collect increases
to Participants' Required Participants Fund Deposits that meet the
Threshold Amount and Percentage on a same-day basis, instead of within
two business days, and therefore facilitates DTC's ability to safeguard
securities and funds in its custody or control or for which it is
responsible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition.
(C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received from Members, Participants, or Others
    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet
been solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by DTC.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-DTC-2013-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2013-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of DTC and on DTC's
Web site at http://dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2013/dtc/SR-DTC-2013-01.pdf. All comments received will be posted without change;
the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-
2013-01 and should be submitted on or before April 29, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08097 Filed 4-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 34)]
[Notices]
[Page 9318]
[DOCID:fr20fe08-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PH08-21-000]

CH Energy Group, Inc.; Notice of Filing

February 12, 2008.
    Take notice that on January 30, 2008, CH Energy Group, Inc.
tendered for filing an explanation why certain change in facts does not
affect CH Energy Group's single-state holding company system waiver
under 18 CFR 366.3(c)(1).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 20, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-3047 Filed 2-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P