[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 3, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45903-45905]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18913]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0729]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Illinois River, Mile Marker 162 to 166, Peoria, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all navigable waters of the Illinois River in two different work zones
located between Mile Marker (MM) 162 and MM 166. The safety zone is
needed to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment from
potential hazards created by the installation of electrical lines
across the river. Entry of persons or vessels into this zone is
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from September 26, 2019, through October
3, 2019, and will be enforced through October 3, 2019, or until the
electrical line work is completed, whichever occurs first.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0729 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 Commander Christian Barger, Waterways
Management Division, Sector Upper Mississippi River, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River
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. We must
establish this temporary safety zone by September 26, 2019, and we lack
sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then
consider those comments before issuing the rule. The NPRM process would
delay establishment of the safety zone until after the date of the
electrical line work and compromise public safety.
    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 immediate action
is necessary to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with
electrical line installation over the Illinois River.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector Upper
Mississippi River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards
associated with electrical line installation over the Illinois River
will be a safety concern for anyone in the two work zones between MM
162 through MM 166. This rule is needed to protect persons, vessels,
and the marine environment on the navigable waters within the safety
zone while electrical lines are pulled across the river.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone for a seven-day
period from September 26, 2019 through October 3, 2019, or until the
electrical line work is completed, whichever occurs first. The safety
zone will be enforced at two work zones on the Illinois River at Peoria
Lake between (MM) 162 through 166.
    Zone A is between two lines perpendicular to the banks drawn
through a mid-channel point at 40[deg]43'28'' N, 89[deg]32'55'' W and
the second at 40[deg]43'30'' N, 89[deg]32'40'' W extending the entire
width of the river.
    Zone B is between two lines perpendicular to the banks drawn
through a mid-channel point at 40[deg]40'48'' N, 89[deg]34'24'' W and
the second at 40[deg]40'45'' N, 89[deg]34'16'' W.
    Transit into and through this safety zone is prohibited during
periods of enforcement unless given permission by the COTP or a
designated representative. This zone will be enforced for up to eight
hours each day between 8 a.m. through 4 p.m. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to
Mariners (BNMs) at least 12 hours in advance of each enforcement
period, and a safety vessel will coordinate all vessel traffic during
the enforcement periods. In addition, the COTP or a designated
representative will release regular BNMs while the zone is in effect
and will also announce the suspension of the zone via VHF-FM marine
channel 16.
    The duration of this temporary safety zone is intended to protect
persons, vessels, and the marine environment on these navigable waters
while the electrical lines are being pulled across the river. No vessel
or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated
representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S.
Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG
Sector Upper Mississippi River. To seek entry into the safety zone,
contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative by telephone
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or on VHF-FM channel 16. Persons and vessels permitted
to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and
comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated
representative.
    The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of
the enforcement dates and times for this safety zone, as well as any
emergent safety concerns that may delay the suspension of the zone each
day, through BNMs, Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine
Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.

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, and duration of the safety zone. This safety zone impacts
less than a one-mile stretch of the Illinois River for up to eight
hours on seven days. Additionally this rule allows vessels to seek
permission to enter the zone.

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
temporary safety zone 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 because the rule will allow
persons and vessels to seek permission to enter the zone and
coordinated entry may be arranged on a case by case basis.
Additionally, coordination with several waterways users has taken place
to mitigate as much impact as possible.
    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. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section above.

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 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 a safety zone lasting only eight hours
each day for seven days that will prohibit entry through an electrical
wire work zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L60 (a) in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementing Procedures. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0729 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0729  Safety Zone; Illinois River, mile marker 162 to
166, Peoria, IL.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: Two work zones
on the Illinois River between (MM) 162 through 166.
    (1) Zone A is between two lines perpendicular to the banks drawn
through a mid-channel point at 40[deg]43'28'' N, 89[deg]32'55'' W and
the second at 40[deg]43'30'' N, 89[deg]32'40'' W extending the entire
width of the river.
    (2) Zone B is between two lines perpendicular to the banks drawn
through a mid-channel point at 40[deg]40'48'' N, 89[deg]34'24'' W and
the second at 40[deg]40'45'' N, 89[deg]34'16'' W. Transit into and
through this safety zone is prohibited during periods of enforcement
unless given permission by the Captain of the Port or a designated
representative.
    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from September 26,
2019 through October 3, 2019.
    (c) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced each day
that electrical line work is to be performed for up to eight hours per
day from approximately 8 a.m. through 4 p.m.
    (d) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry of vessels or persons into this zone
is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) or designated representative. A
designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control
of USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River.
    (2) Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. To seek entry
into the safety zone, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or on VHF-FM channel 16.
    (3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must
transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful
directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
    (e) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public of the enforcement dates and times for this
safety zone, as well as any emergent safety concerns that may delay the
enforcement of the zone each day, through Broadcast Notice to Mariners
(BNM), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety
Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.

    Dated: August 28, 2019.
S.A. Stoermer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi
River.
[FR Doc. 2019-18913 Filed 8-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 35103]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14285]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2012-14]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before July 2, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2012-
0350 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyneka Thomas ARM-105,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
FAA, Office of Rulemaking, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC
20591. This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 31, 2012.
Lirio Liu,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2012-0350.
    Petitioner: Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and Experimental
Aircraft Association.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 61.3(c) and 61.23(a).
    Description of Relief Sought: The relief sought would allow the
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and Experimental Aircraft
Association members to conduct certain operations of aircraft without
having to hold an FAA-issued medical certificate.

[FR Doc. 2012-14285 Filed 6-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21855-21858]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09734]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0775; Product Identifier 2017-NM-048-AD; Amendment
39-19272; AD 2018-09-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-25-18,
which applied to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-
700-1A11 airplanes. AD 2016-25-18 required an inspection for
discrepancies of the attachment points of the links between the engine
rear mount assemblies, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD
requires an inspection of certain attachment points, corrective action
if necessary, and replacement of certain bolts and nuts in the engine
rear mount assemblies. This AD also adds airplanes to the
applicability. This AD was prompted by the determination that
replacement of certain nuts and bolts in the engine rear mount
assemblies is necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective June 15, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 15,
2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of January
3, 2017 (81 FR 90961, December 16, 2016).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 514-855-
7401; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at
the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0775.

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-2017-
0775; 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, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone: 800-
647-5527) is Docket 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: Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2016-25-18, Amendment 39-18744 (81 FR 90961,

December 16, 2016) (``AD 2016-25-18''). AD 2016-25-18 applied to
certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2017 (82 FR
38626). The NPRM was prompted by the determination that replacement of
certain nuts and bolts in the engine rear mount assemblies is
necessary. The NPRM proposed to continue to require an inspection for
discrepancies of the attachment points of the links between the engine
rear mount assemblies, and corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM
also proposed to require an inspection of certain attachment points,
corrective action if necessary, and replacement of certain bolts and
nuts in the engine rear mount assemblies. The NPRM also proposed to add
airplanes to the applicability. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct broken engine attachment hardware, which could result in
separation of an engine from the airplane.
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2016-23R1, dated
February 20, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-
1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Bombardier reported that during maintenance of a BD-700
aeroplane, the engine mount pin, part number (P/N) BRR15838, was
found backed out of the rear mount link. The retaining bolt, P/N
AS54020, which passes through the engine mount pin was also found
fractured at the groove which holds the locking spring. An
investigation revealed the most probable root cause of failure to be
a single axial tension static overload, with no evidence of fatigue
contributing to the failure.
    The above condition if not detected, may result in the loss of
engine attachment to the airframe.
    As an interim corrective action, Bombardier issued Service
Bulletins (SBs) 700-71-002, 700-71-6002, 700-71-5002, and 700-1A11-
71-002 to inspect the attachment points of the links between the
engine rear mount assemblies, and install replacement hardware if
required.
    The original version of this [Canadian] AD was issued to mandate
incorporation of the above Bombardier SBs to inspect and maintain
integrity of the affected engine rear mount assembly.
    Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD is issued to mandate
incorporation of the Bombardier SBs 700-71-003, 700-71-6003, 700-71-
5003, and 700-1A11-71-003 to replace the existing bolts and self-
locking nuts with new bolts and nuts, as a final corrective action.

    The MCAI also adds airplanes having serial numbers 9764, 9766, and
9771 through 9785 inclusive to the applicability. Those airplanes are
also affected by the identified unsafe condition. You may examine the
MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0775.

Comments

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

Requests To Provide Credit for Actions Previously Accomplished

    NetJets Aviation requested that we provide credit for accomplishing
the actions specified in paragraphs (j) and (k) of the proposed AD
prior to the effective date of this AD. Bombardier requested that we
provide credit for accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs
(k) and (l) of the proposed AD prior to the effective date of this AD.
    We acknowledge the commenters' requests and agree to clarify.
Paragraph (f) of this AD states to accomplish the required actions
within the compliance times specified, ``unless already done.''
Therefore, if operators have accomplished the actions required for
compliance with this AD before the effective date of this AD, no
further action is necessary. We have not revised this AD in this
regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued the following service information. This
service information describes procedures for an inspection for
discrepancies of the attachment points of the links between the engine
rear mount assemblies and corrective actions. These documents are
distinct since they apply to different airplane models and serial
numbers.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-71-002, Revision 01,
dated June 30, 2016.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-71-002, Revision 01, dated
June 30, 2016.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-71-5002, Revision 01,
dated June 30, 2016.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-71-6002, Revision 01,
dated June 30, 2016.
    Bombardier, Inc. has also issued the following service information.
This service information describes procedures for nut and bolt
replacements. These documents are distinct since they apply to
different airplane models and serial numbers.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-71-003, dated
December 5, 2016.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-71-003, dated December 5,
2016.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-71-5003, dated December 5,
2016.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-71-6003, dated December 5,
2016.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 97 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The actions required by AD 2016-25-18, and retained in this AD take
about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions
that are required by AD 2016-25-18 is $85 per product.
    The retained on-condition costs in this AD take about 2 work-hours
per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required
parts cost about $730 per product. Based on these figures, the
estimated cost of the on-condition actions that are required by AD
2016-25-18 is $900 per product.
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for other retained on-condition actions specified in AD
2016-25-18.
    We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost up to $14,940 per
product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on
U.S. operators to be up to $1,482,160, or up to $15,280 per product.
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered

under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our
cost estimate.

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. 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.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2016-25-18, Amendment 39-18744 (81 FR 90961, December 16, 2016), and
adding the following new AD:

2018-09-15 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-19272; Docket No. FAA-
2017-0775; Product Identifier 2017-NM-048-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 15, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2016-25-18, Amendment 39-18744 (81 FR 90961,
December 16, 2016) (``AD 2016-25-18'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-
700-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/
Ns) 9002 through 9785 inclusive, and 9998.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 72, Engine.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that during
maintenance, an engine mount pin was found backed out of the rear
mount link, and the associated retaining bolt was also found
fractured at the groove that holds the locking spring, and a
determination that replacement of certain nuts and bolts in the
engine rear mount assemblies is necessary. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct broken engine attachment hardware, which could
result in separation of an engine from the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Inspection, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2016-25-18, with no changes. For airplanes having S/Ns 9002 through
9763 inclusive, 9765, 9767 through 9770 inclusive, and 9998: Within
500 flight hours or 4 months, whichever occurs first after January
3, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2016-25-18), do an inspection for
discrepancies of the engine rear mount assemblies (including missing
or broken bolts, missing nuts, incorrect torque values, and an
incorrect gap between the bushing and washer); in accordance with
Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service
information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this
AD. Accomplishing the actions required by paragraphs (j) and (k) of
this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-71-002, Revision 01,
dated June 30, 2016 (for Bombardier Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).
    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-71-002, Revision 01, dated
June 30, 2016 (for Bombardier Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).
    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-71-5002, Revision 01, dated
June 30, 2016 (for Bombardier Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).
    (4) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-71-6002, Revision 01, dated
June 30, 2016 (for Bombardier Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).

(h) Retained Corrective Action for Paragraph (g) of This AD, With No
Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2016-25-18, with no changes. If any discrepancy is detected during
the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further
flight, replace missing parts and correct noncompliant gaps and bolt
torque, as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the
applicable service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (g)(4) of this AD, except as required by paragraph (i) of
this AD. Accomplishing the actions required by paragraphs (j) and
(k) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

(i) Retained Exception to Service Information Specifications, With No
Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2016-25-18, with no changes. Where the applicable Bombardier service
bulletin specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD
provides no instructions for corrective actions, or specifies to
contact Bombardier for appropriate action, accomplish corrective
actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(o)(2) of this AD.

(j) New Requirement of This AD: Gap Measurement

    Within 1,000 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first
after the effective date of this AD: Measure the gaps between the
applicable shouldered bushing fitted on the mount beam and the
washer; and between the applicable engine ring lug and the head of
the mount pin to determine if the gaps are within acceptable limits;
in accordance with Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions of the
applicable service information specified in paragraphs (j)(1)
through (j)(4) of this AD. Accomplishing the actions required by
paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD terminates the requirements of
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-71-003, dated December
5, 2016 (for Bombardier Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).

    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-71-003, dated December 5,
2016 (for Bombardier Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).
    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-71-5003, dated December 5,
2016 (for Bombardier Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).
    (4) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-71-6003, dated December 5,
2016 (for Bombardier Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).

(k) New Requirement of This AD: Nut and Bolt Replacements, and Gap
Measurement

    Within 1,000 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first
after the effective date of this AD: Replace the nuts having part
number (P/N) AS54365 and the bolts having P/N AS54020 and AS54002 in
the engine rear mount assembly with new nuts and new bolts; and do
the gap measurement to determine if the gap is within acceptable
limits; in accordance with Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions
of the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (j)(1)
through (j)(4) of this AD.

(l) New Requirement of This AD: Corrective Action

    If any gap is detected, during any measurement required by
paragraph (j) or (k) of this AD, that is not within the applicable
limits specified in the service information specified in paragraphs
(j)(1) through (j)(4) of this AD, before further flight repair using
a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA; or
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA
Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the
approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(m) No Reporting Required

    Although the service information identified in paragraphs (j)(1)
through (j)(4) of this AD specifies to submit certain information to
the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

(n) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before January 3, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2016-25-18), in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable
service information specified in paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(4) of
this AD.
    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-71-002, dated May 31,
2016 (for Bombardier Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).
    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-71-002, dated May 31, 2016
(for Bombardier Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).
    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-71-5002, dated May 31, 2016
(for Bombardier Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).
    (4) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-71-6002, dated May 31, 2016
(for Bombardier Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).

(o) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, FAA,
New York ACO Branch, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD,
if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved by
the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(p) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2016-23R1, dated February 20, 2017, for
related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2017-0775.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Aziz Ahmed,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA,
New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (q)(5) and (q)(6) of this AD.

(q) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
June 15, 2018.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-71-003, dated December
5, 2016.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-71-003, dated December 5,
2016.
    (iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-71-5003, dated December 5,
2016.
    (iv) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-71-6003, dated December 5,
2016.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
January 3, 2017 (81 FR 90961, December 16, 2016).
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-71-002, Revision 01,
dated June 30, 2016.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-71-002, Revision 01, dated
June 30, 2016.
    (iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-71-5002, Revision 01,
dated June 30, 2016.
    (iv) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-71-6002, Revision 01, dated
June 30, 2016.
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 514-
855-7401; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.bombardier.com.
    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on April 27, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-09734 Filed 5-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 7 (Monday, January 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1532-1534]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00224]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74008; File No. SR-MIAX-2014-70]

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

January 6, 2015.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on December 24, 2014, Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend its Fee Schedule.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its current MIAX Market Maker \3\
sliding scale for transaction fees to: (i) Add an additional volume
tier; (ii) modify the volume thresholds in the tiers; and (iii) add an
additional tier to the Priority Customer rebate incentive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``MIAX Market Maker'' for purposes of the proposed sliding
scale means any MIAX Market Maker including RMM, LMM, PLMM, DLMM,
and DPLMM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The sliding scale for MIAX Market Maker transaction fees is based
on the substantially similar fees of the Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'').\4\ Specifically, the program reduces
a MIAX Market Maker's per contract transaction fee based on percentages
of total national Market Maker volume of any options classes that trade
on the exchange during the calendar month, based on the following
scale:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55193 (January 30,
2007), 72 FR 5476 (February 6, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-111); 57191
(January 24, 2008), 73 FR 5611 (January 30, 2008); 58321 (August 6,
2008), 73 FR 46955 (SR-CBOE-2008-78). See also CBOE Fees Schedule,
p. 3.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Transaction
          Tier              Percentage of national Market      fee per
                                     Maker volume              contract
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................  0.00%-0.03%......................        $0.23
2.......................  Above 0.03%-0.40%................         0.17
3.......................  Above 0.40%-0.80%................         0.12
4.......................  Above 0.80%-1.50%................         0.07
5.......................  Above 1.50%......................         0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The sliding scale would apply to all MIAX Market Makers for
transactions in all products except mini-options. By

amending the volume tier calculations and adding a new volume tier, the
sliding scale will more closely align with that of CBOE.\5\ A MIAX
Market Maker's initial $0.23 per contract rate will be reduced if the
MIAX Market Maker reaches the volume thresholds set forth in the
sliding scale in a month. As a MIAX Market Maker's monthly volume
increases, its per contract transaction fee would decrease. The Market
Maker sliding scale will continue to apply to MIAX Market Maker (RMM,
LMM, DLMM, PLMM, DPLMM) transaction fees in all products except mini-
options. MIAX Market Makers will continue to be assessed a $0.02 per
executed contract fee for transactions in mini-options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55193 (January 30,
2007), 72 FR 5476 (February 6, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-111); 58321
(August 6, 2008), 73 FR 46955 (SR-CBOE-2008-78); 71295 (January 14,
2014), 79 FR 3443 (January 21, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2013-129).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed sliding scale is objective in
that the fee reductions are based solely on reaching stated volume
thresholds. The specific volume thresholds of the tiers were set based
upon business determinations and an analysis of current volume levels.
The specific volume thresholds and rates were set in order to encourage
MIAX Market Makers to reach for higher tiers. The Exchange believes
that the proposed changes to the tiered fee schedule may incent firms
to display their orders on the Exchange and increase the volume of
contracts traded here.
    As mentioned above, the Exchange notes that the proposed sliding
fee scale for MIAX Market Makers structured on contract volume
thresholds is based on the substantially similar fees of the CBOE.\6\
The Exchange also notes that a number of other exchanges have tiered
fee schedules which offer different transaction fee rates depending on
the monthly ADV of liquidity providing executions on their
facilities.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55193 (January 30,
2007), 72 FR 5476 (February 6, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-111); 58321
(August 6, 2008), 73 FR 46955 (SR-CBOE-2008-78); 71295 (January 14,
2014), 79 FR 3443 (January 21, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2013-129).
    \7\ See, e.g., International Securities Exchange, LLC, Schedule
of Fees, Section VI, C; NASDAQ Options Market, Chapter XV, Section
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to add an additional tier to the rebate
incentive for Priority Customer orders. The Exchange offers MIAX Market
Makers the opportunity to reduce transaction fees by $0.02 per contract
in standard options if the Member or its affiliates of at least 75%
common ownership between the firms as reflected on each firm's Form BD,
Schedule A, qualifies in a given month for Priority Customer Rebate
Program volume tiers 3, 4, or 5 in the Fee Schedule. The Exchange
proposes to amend the rebate incentive for Priority Customer orders in
order to extend the rebate incentive to the new volume tier of the MIAX
Market Maker sliding scale. As proposed, any Member or its affiliates
of at least 75% common ownership between the firms as reflected on each
firm's Form BD, Schedule A, that qualifies for Priority Customer Rebate
Program volume tiers 3, 4, or 5 and is a MIAX Market Maker will be
assessed $0.21 per contract for tier 1, $0.15 per contract for tier 2,
$0.10 per contract for tier 3, $0.05 per contract for tier 4, and $0.03
per contract for tier 5 for transactions in standard options in lieu of
the applicable transaction fees in the Market Maker sliding scale.
    The Exchange believes that these incentives will encourage MIAX
Market Makers to transact a greater number of orders on the Exchange.
    The proposed changes will become operative on January 1, 2015.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that
it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges
among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed volume based discount fee structure is not
discriminatory in that all MIAX Market Makers are eligible to submit
(or not submit) liquidity, and may do so at their discretion in the
daily volumes they choose during the course of the billing period. All
similarly situated MIAX Market Makers are subject to the same fee
structure, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not
unfairly discriminatory. Volume based discounts have been widely
adopted by options and equities markets, and are equitable because they
are open to all MIAX Market Makers on an equal basis and provide
discounts that are reasonably related to the value of an exchange's
market quality associated with higher volumes. The proposed fee levels
and volume thresholds are reasonably designed to be comparable to those
of other options exchanges employing similar fee programs, and also to
attract additional liquidity and order flow to the Exchange.
    The Exchange's proposal to offer an additional tier to provide MIAX
Market Makers the opportunity to reduce transaction fees by $0.02 per
contract in standard options, provided certain criteria are met, is
reasonable because the Exchange desires to offer all such market
participants an opportunity to lower their transaction fees. The
Exchange's proposal to offer MIAX Market Makers the opportunity to
reduce transaction fees by $0.02 per contract in standard options,
provided certain criteria are met, is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange offers all market participants,
excluding Priority Customers, a means to reduce transaction fees by
qualifying for volume tiers in the Priority Customer Rebate Program.
The Exchange believes that offering all such market participants the
opportunity to lower transaction fees by incentivizing them to transact
Priority Customer order flow in turn benefits all market participants.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges and to attract order flow. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment because it
modifies the Exchange's fees in a manner that encourages market
participants to provide liquidity and to send order flow to the
Exchange.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\10\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the

Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2014-70 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2014-70. 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 the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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-MIAX-2014-70 and
should be submitted on or before February 2, 2015. For the Commission,
by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00224 Filed 1-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Appendix A to Subpart DDDDD   Methodology and Criteria for Demonstrating Eligibility for the Risk Based Compliance Alternatives Specified for the Large Solid Fuel Subcategory 1. Purpose/ Introduction This appendix provides the methodology and criteria for demonstrating that your affected source is eligible for the compliance alternative for the HCl emission limit and/ or the total selected metals ( TSM) emission limit. This appendix specifies emissions testing methods that you must use to determine HCl, chlorine, and manganese emissions from the affected sources and what parts of the affected source facility must be included in the eligibility demonstration. You must determine if your facility is eligible for the risk based compliance alternatives using either a look up table analysis ( based on the look up tables included in this appendix) or sitespecific risk assessment performed according to the criteria specified in this appendix. This appendix also specifies how and when you file any eligibility demonstrations for your affected source and how to show that your affected source remains eligible for the risk based compliance alternatives in the future.

2. Who is eligible to demonstrate that they qualify for the riskbased compliance alternatives?

Each new, reconstructed, or existing affected source may demonstrate that they are eligible for the risk based compliance alternatives. Section 63.7490 of subpart DDDDD defines the affected source and explains which affected sources are new,

existing, or reconstructed.

3. What parts of my facility have to be included in the riskbased eligibility demonstration?

If you are attempting to determine your eligibility for the compliance alternative for HCl, you must include every appropriate emission point within the affected source facility that emits one or more of the following HAP, which are referred to as respiratory toxicants, in the eligibility demonstration:

Respiratory Toxicants Pollutant CAS Number Chlorine 7782 50 5 Propylene oxide 75 56 9 Styrene oxide 96 09 3 Acrolein 107 02 8 Titanium tetrachloride 7550 45 0 Triethylamine 121 44 8 Bis( 2 ethylhexyl) phthalate 117 81 7 2,4 Toluene diisocyanate 26471 62 5 Acrylic acid 79 10 7 Acrylonitrile 107 13 1 Vinyl acetate 108 05 4 Toluene 108 88 3 Methyl isocyanate 624 83 9 n Hexane 110 54 3 Hydrochloric acid 7647 01 0 Maleic anhydride 108 31 6 Methyl bromide 74 83 9 Phthalic anhydride 85 44 9 2 Chloroacetophenone 532 27 4 Cobalt 7440 48 4 Methyl methacrylate 80 62 6 Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate 101 68 8 Naphthalene 91 20 3 Nitrobenzene 98 95 3 Phosgene 75 44 5 1,3 dichloropropene 542 75 6 Propylene dichloride 78 87 5 Diethanolamine 111 42 2 Ethylene glycol 107 21 1 Chloroprene 126 99 8 Hexamethylene 1,6 diisocyanate 822 06 0 Nickel compounds Antimony compounds Beryllium compounds Hexavalent Chromium compounds If you are attempting to determine your eligibility for the compliance alternative for TSM, you must include every appropriate emission point within the affected source facility that emits one or more of the following HAP, which are referred to as central nervous system toxicants, in the eligibility demonstration.

Central nervous system toxicants Pollutant CAS Number Dichlorvos 62 73 7 Cresols ( mixed) 1319 77 3 Benzidine 92 87 5 Allyl chloride 107 05 1 Acrylamide 79 06 1 Carbon disulfide 75 15 0 1,1,1 Trichloroethane 71 55 6 Ethylene oxide 75 21 8 Styrene 100 42 5 Tetrachloroethene 127 18 4 Methyl chloride 74 87 3 n Hexane 110 54 3 Xylenes ( mixed) 1330 20 7 Toluene 108 88 3 Cyanide compounds Selenium compounds Mercury compounds Manganese compounds 4. How do I determine HAP emissions from my affected source?

( a) You must conduct HAP emissions tests for every emission point covered under subpart DDDDD within the affected source facility according to the requirements in paragraphs ( b) through ( f) of this section and the methods specified in Table 1 of this appendix.

If you are attempting to determine your eligibility for the compliance alternative for HCl, you must test the subpart DDDDD units at your facility for HCl and Cl2. In addition to the emissions of HCl and Cl2 from your subpart DDDDD sources, the eligibility demonstration must include the emissions of respiratory toxicants from all other emission points at your facility. These may be obtained either through emission testing or through the development and documentation of best engineering estimates of maximum emissions for those sources.

If you are attempting to determine your eligibility for the compliance alternative for TSM, you must test the subpart DDDDD units at your facility for manganese. In addition to the emissions of manganese from your subpart DDDDD sources, the eligibility demonstration must include emissions of CNS toxicants from all other emission points at your facility. These may be obtained either through emission testing or through the development and documentation of best engineering estimates of maximum emissions for those sources.

( b) Periods when emissions tests must be conducted. ( 1) You must not conduct emissions tests during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in § 63.7( e)( 1).

( 2) You must test under worst case operating conditions as defined in this appendix. You must describe your worst case operating conditions in your performance test report for the process and control systems ( if applicable) and explain why the conditions are worst case.

( c) Number of test runs. You must conduct three separate test runs for each test required in this section, as specified in § 63.7( e)( 3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour.

( d) Sampling locations. Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.

( e) Collection of monitoring data for HAP control devices.

During the emissions test, you must collect operating parameter monitoring system at least every 15 minutes during the entire emissions test and establish the site specific operating requirements in Tables 3 or 4, as appropriate, of subpart DDDDD using data from the monitoring system and the procedures specified in § 63.7530 of subpart DDDDD.

( f) Nondetect data. You may treat emissions of an individual HAP as zero if all of the test runs result in a nondetect measurement and the condition in paragraph ( 1) is met for the manganese test method. Otherwise nondetect data for individual HAP must be treated as one half of the method MaxHourlyEmissions ER Hm = × detection limit.

( 1) For manganese measured using Method 29 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, you analyze samples using atomic absorption spectroscopy ( AAS).

( g) You must determine the maximum hourly emission rate for each appropriate emission point according to equation 1.

( Eq. 1 )

Where:

MaxHourly = Maximum hourly emissions for Emissions hydrogen chloride, chlorine, or manganese, in units of pounds per hour.

Er = Emission rate ( as calculated according to Table 1 of this appendix) for hydrogen chloride, chlorine, or manganese, in units of pounds per million Btu of heat input.

Hm = Maximum rated heat input capacity of appropriate emission point, in units of million Btu per hour.

5. What are the criteria for determining if my facility is eligible for the risk based compliance alternatives? ( a) Determine the HAP emissions from each appropriate emission point within the affected source facility using the procedures specified in section 4 of this appendix.

( b) Determine if your facility is eligible for either of the risk based compliance alternatives by conducting a chronic noncancer risk assessment for your facility using one of the methods described in either section 6 of this appendix ( look up table analysis) or section 7 of this appendix ( site specific risk assessment).

( c) Your facility is eligible for the risk based compliance alternative for HCl if 1 of the following 2 statements is true:

( 1) The calculated HCl equivalent emissions for your entire facility is below the appropriate value in the look up table;

( 2) Your site specific risk assessment indicates that your total facility maximum respiratory HI is less than 1.0;

( d) Your facility is eligible for the risk based compliance alternative for TSM if 1 of the following 2 statements is true:

( 1) The calculated manganese equivalent emissions for your entire facility is below the appropriate value in the lookup table;

( 2) Your site specific risk assessment indicates that your total facility maximum central nervous system HI is less than 1.0;

6. How do I conduct a look up table analysis? You may use look up tables to determine if your facility is eligible for either the compliance alternative for the HCl emission limit or the compliance alternative for TSM emission limit.

( a) HCl risk based compliance alternative. Determine the total toxicity weighted HCl equivalent emission rate for your facility. Develop the total facility emission rate of HCl by summing the maximum hourly HCl emission rates from all sources within the facility boundary line. Similarly, develop the totalfacility emission rate for Cl2. Now, develop the total facility emission rate for each of the respiratory toxicants emitted by your facility by summing the emissions across all emission points within the facility boundary line except those covered by subpart DDDDD. A toxicity weighted emission rate expressed in HCl equivalents is then calculated according to equation 2 of this appendix.

ERtw =

( ERi x ( RfCHCl/ RfCi)) Eq. 2 where: ERtw is toxicity weighted emission rate ERi is the emission rate of HAP i in lbs/ hr RfCi is the reference concentration of HAP i RfCHCl is the reference concentration of HCl ( RfCs and other appropriate dose response values can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ atw/ toxsource/ summary. html) Calculated toxicity weighted emission rates will then be compared to the appropriate allowable toxicity weighted emission rate in Table 2 of this appendix. To determine the correct value from the table, a facility wide average value should be used for stack height and the minimum distance between any stack at the facility and the closest boundary of the nearest residential ( or residentially zoned) area should be used for fenceline distance.

If one or both of these values do not match the values in the lookup tables then use the next lowest table value. Your facility is eligible for alternative compliance with the HCl emission limit if your toxicity weighted emission rate,

determined using the methods specified in this appendix, does not exceed the appropriate value in Table 2 of this appendix.

( b) TSM Compliance Alernative. Determine the total toxicity weighted manganese equivalent emission rate for your affected source by summing the maximum hourly manganese emission rates for all sources within the facility boundary line and the maximum hourly emission rates of any additional central nervous system toxicants from all emission points within the facility boundary line except those covered by subpart DDDDD. A toxicityweighted emission rate expressed in manganese equivalents is then calculated according to equation 3 of this appendix.

ERtw =

( ERi x ( RfCMn/ RfCi)) Eq. 3 where: ERtw is toxicity weighted emission rate ERi is the emission rate of HAP i in lbs/ hr RfCi is the reference concentration of HAP i RfCMn is the reference concentration of manganese ( RfCs and other appropriate dose response values can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ atw/ toxsource/ summary. html)

Calculated toxicity weighted emission rates will then be compared to the appropriate allowable toxicity weighted emission rate in the table. To determine the correct value from the table, a facility wide average value should be used for stack height and the minimum distance between any stack at the facility and the closest boundary of the nearest residential ( or residentiallyzoned area should be used for fenceline distance. If one or both of these values do not match the values in the lookup tables then use the next lowest table value. Your facility may exclude manganese when demonstrating compliance with the total selected metals emission limit if your toxicity weighted emission rate,

determined using the methods specified in this appendix, does not exceed the values specified in Table 3 of this appendix.

7. How do I conduct a site specific risk assessment?

If you fail to demonstrate that your facility is low risk using the lookup table approach, you may choose to perform a site specific risk assessment for your entire facility. You may use any scientifically accepted peer reviewed assessment methodology for your site specific risk assessment. An example approach to performing a site specific assessment for air toxics is provided in the " Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library", which may be obtained through the EPA's Air Toxics Website at www. epa. gov/ ttn/ atw.

( 1) Your facility is eligible for the HCl alternative compliance option if your site specific risk assessment demonstrates that the HI from respiratory HAP is less than 1.0.

( 2) Your facility is eligible for the TSM alternative compliance option if your site specific risk assessment demonstrates the risk from manganese emissions is less than 1.0.

( b) Your site specific risk assessment should:

( 1) focus on estimating long term inhalation exposures through the estimation of annual or multi year average ambient concentrations;

( 2) focus on estimating the inhalation exposure of the individual most exposed to the facility's emissions;

( 3) not assume any attenuation of exposure concentrations due to the penetration of outdoor pollutants into indoor exposure areas;

( 4) not assume any reaction or deposition of the emitted pollutants during transport from the emission point to the point of exposure;

( 5) use site specific, quality assured data wherever possible; ( 6) use health protective default assumptions wherever sitespecific data are not available, and;

( 7) contain adequate documentation of the data and methods used for the assessment that it can be reproduced by an experienced risk assessor.

8. What must my risk based eligibility demonstration contain?

( a) Your risk based eligibility demonstration must contain the information specified in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 6) of this section.

( 1) Identification of each appropriate emission point at the affected source facility, including the maximum rated capacity of each appropriate emission point.

( 2) Stack parameters for each appropriate emission point including, but not limited to, the parameters listed in ( a)( 2)( i)

through ( iv) below:

( i) Emission release type ( ii) Stack height, stack area, stack gas temperature, and stack gas exit velocity ( iii) Plot plan showing all emission points, nearby residences, and fenceline.

( iv) Identification of any control devices used to reduce emissions from each appropriate emission point.

( 3) Emission test reports for each appropriate pollutant and emission point based on the test methods specified in Table 1 of this appendix, including a description of the process parameters identified as being worst case. For those emissions which are not measured but are included in the assessment, the calculation method used, the inputs and outputs of any estimation developed,

and any supporting references should be included in the documentation.

( 4) Identification of the RfC values used in your sitespecific risk assessment, according to section 5( b) of this appendix.

( 5) Calculations used to determine the toxicity weighted emission rates expressed in HCl equivalents or manganese equivalent according to sections 6( a) or ( b) of this appendix ( Note: this information need only be included if a look up table analysis is performed).

( 6) Identification of the controlling process factors ( including, but not limited to, fuel type, heat input rate, type of control devices, process parameters documented as worst case conditions during the emissions testing used for your eligibility demonstration) that will become Federally enforceable permit conditions used to show that your facility remains eligible for the risk based compliance alternatives.

( b) If you use the look up table analysis in section 5 of this appendix to demonstrate that your facility is eligible for either risk based compliance alternative, your eligibility demonstration must contain the information in paragraphs ( a) and ( b)( 1) through ( 3) of this section.

( 1) Calculations used to determine the average stack height of the appropriate emission points.

( 2) Identification of the appropriate emission point with the nearest distance to the closest boundary of the nearest residential ( or residentially zoned) area used for fenceline distance.

( 3) Comparison of the values in the look up tables ( Tables 2 and 3 of this appendix) to your maximum toxicity weighted hourly emission rates.

( c) If you are using a site specific risk assessment as described in section 7 of this appendix to demonstrate that your facility is eligible, your eligibility demonstration must contain the information in paragraphs ( a) and ( c)( 1) through ( 7) of this section:

( 1) Identification of the risk assessment methodology used.

( 2) Documentation of the fate and transport model used.

( 3) Documentation of the fate and transport model inputs,

including the information described in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 5) of this section converted to the dimensions required for the model and all of the following that apply: meteorological data;

building, land use, and terrain data; receptor locations and population data; and other facility specific parameters input into the model.

( 4) Documentation of the fate and transport model outputs. ( 5) Documentation of any exposure assessment and risk characterization calculations.

( 6) Comparison of the maximum chronic HI to the HI limit of 1.0.

9. When do I have to complete and submit my risk based eligibility demonstration?

( a) If you have an existing affected source, you must complete and submit your eligibility demonstration to your permitting authority, along with a signed certification that the demonstration is an accurate depiction of your facility, no later than the date one year prior to the compliance date of subpart DDDDD.

( b) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source that starts up before the effective date of subpart DDDDD, or an affected source that is an area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP before the effective date of subpart DDDDD, then you must comply with the requirements of subpart DDDDD until your eligibility demonstration is completed and submitted to your permitting authority.

( c) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source that starts up after the effective date for subpart DDDDD, or an affected source that is an area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP after the effective date for subpart DDDDD, then you must follow the schedule in paragraphs ( 1) and ( 2) of this section.

( 1) You must complete and submit a preliminary eligibility demonstration based on the information ( e. g., equipment types,

estimated emission rates, etc.) used to obtain your title V permit. You must base your preliminary eligibility demonstration on the maximum emissions allowed under your title V permit. If the preliminary eligibility demonstration indicates that your affected source facility is eligible for either compliance alternative, then you may start up your new affected source and your new affected source will be considered in compliance with the alternative HCl standard and subject to the compliance requirements in this appendix or, in the case of manganese, your compliance demonstration with the TSM emission limit is based on 7 metals ( excluding manganese).

( 2) You must conduct the emission tests specified in section 4 of this appendix upon initial startup and use the results of these emissions tests to complete and submit your eligibility demonstration within 180 days following your initial startup date. To be eligible, you must meet the criteria in section 11 of this appendix within 18 months following initial startup of your affected source.

10. When do I become eligible for the risk based compliance alternatives?

To be eligible for either risk based compliance alternative, the parameters that defined your affected source as eligible for the risk based compliance alternatives ( including, but not limited to, fuel type, type of control devices, process parameters documented as worst case conditions during the emissions testing used for your eligibility demonstration) must be incorporated as Federally enforceable limits into your title V permit. If you do not meet these criteria, then your affected source is subject to the applicable emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards in Subpart DDDDD.

11. How do I ensure that my facility remains eligible for the risk based compliance alternatives?

( a) You must update your eligibility demonstration and resubmit it each time you have a process change, such that any of the parameters that defined your affected source changes in a way that could result in increased HAP emissions ( including, but not limited to, fuel type, change in type of control device, changes in process parameters documented as worst case conditions during the emissions testing used for your approved eligibility demonstration).

( b) If you are updating your eligibility demonstration to account for an action in paragraph ( a) of this section, then you must perform emission testing according to section 4 of this appendix for the appropriate emission points that may have increased HAP emissions beyond the levels reflected in your previously approved eligibility demonstration due to the process change. You must submit your revised eligibility demonstration to EPA prior to revising your permit to incorporate the process change. If your updated eligibility demonstration indicates that your affected source is no longer eligible for the risk based compliance alternatives, then you must comply with the applicable emission limits, operating limits, and compliance requirements in Subpart DDDDD prior to making the process change and revising your permit.

13. What records must I keep?

( a) You must keep records of the information used in developing the eligibility demonstration for your affected source, including all of the information specified in section 8 of this appendix.

14. Definitions.

The definitions in § 63.7575 of subpart DDDDD apply to this appendix. Additional definitions applicable for this appendix are as follows:

Appropriate emission point means a process unit that is reasonably expected to emit the HAP of concern ( HCl, chlorine,

manganese, respiratory toxicants, or central nervous system toxicants).

Hazard Index ( HI) means the sum of more than one hazard quotient for multiple substances and/ or multiple exposure pathways.

Hazard Quotient ( HQ) means the ratio of the predicted media concentration of a pollutant to the media concentratation at which no adverse effects are expected. For inhalation exposures,

the HQ is calculated as the air concentration divided by the RfC.

Look up table analysis means a risk screening analysis based on comparing the HAP emission rate ( or toxicity weighted HAP emission rate) from the affected source to the maximum allowable HAP emission rates specified in Tables 3 and 4 of this appendix.

Reference Concentration ( RfC) means an estimate ( with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population ( including sensitive subgroups that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. It can be derived from various types of human or animal data, with uncertainty factors generally applied to reflect limitations of the data used.

Worst case operating conditions means operation of a process unit during emissions testing under the conditions that result in the highest HAP emissions or that result in the emissions stream composition ( including HAP and non HAP) that is most challenging for the control device if a control device is used. For example,

worst case conditions could include operation of the process unit at maximum throughput with the wood species mix likely to produce the most HAP. Table 1 to Appendix B of Subpart DDDDD. Emission Test Methods.

For... You must... Using...

( 1) each emission point select sampling ports' location and the number of traverse points Method 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.

( 2) each emission point determine velocity and volumetric flow rate; Method 2, 2F, or 2G in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.

( 3) each emission point conduct gas molecular weight analysis Method 3A or 3B in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.

( 4) each emission point measure moisture content of the stack gas Method 4 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.

( 5) each emission point measure the hydrogen chloride and chlorine emission concentrations Method 26 or 26A in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.

( 6) each emission point measure the manganese emission concentration Method 29 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. ( 7) each emission point convert emissions concentration to lb per MMBtu emission rates. Method 19 F factor methodology in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. Table 2 to Appendix A of Subpart DDDDD. Allowable toxicity weighted emission rate expressed in HCl equivalents ( lbs/ hr)

fenceline ( m)

Stack ht.( m) 50 100 150 200 250 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 5000 5 114.9 114.9 114.9 114.9 114.9 144.3 287.3 373.0 373.0 373.0 373.0 10 188.5 188.5 188.5 188.5 188.5 195.3 328.0 453.5 434.4 434.4 434.4 20 386.1 386.1 386.1 386.1 386.1 386.1 425.4 580.0 602.7 602.7 602.7 30 396.1 396.1 396.1 396.1 396.1 396.1 436.3 596.2 690.6 807.8 816.5 40 408.1 408.1 408.1 408.1 408.1 408.1 448.2 613.3 715.5 832.2 966.0 50 421.4 421.4 421.4 421.4 421.4 421.4 460.6 631.0 746.3 858.2 1002.8 60 435.5 435.5 435.5 435.5 435.5 435.5 473.4 649.0 778.6 885.0 1043.4 70 450.2 450.2 450.2 450.2 450.2 450.2 486.6 667.4 813.8 912.4 1087.4 80 465.5 465.5 465.5 465.5 465.5 465.5 500.0 685.9 849.8 940.9 1134.8 100 497.5 497.5 497.5 497.5 497.5 497.5 527.4 723.6 917.1 1001.2 1241.3 200 677.3 677.3 677.3 677.3 677.3 677.3 682.3 919.8 1167.1 1390.4 1924.6 Table 3 to Appendix A of Subpart DDDDD. Allowable Manganese Emission Rates ( lbs/ hr)

fenceline ( m)

Stack ht.( m) 50 100 150 200 250 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 5000 5 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.36 0.72 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 10 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.49 0.82 1.13 1.09 1.09 1.09 20 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.06 1.45 1.51 1.51 1.51 30 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.09 1.49 1.73 2.02 2.04 40 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.12 1.53 1.79 2.08 2.42 50 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.15 1.58 1.87 2.15 2.51 60 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.18 1.62 1.95 2.21 2.61 70 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.22 1.67 2.03 2.28 2.72 80 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.25 1.71 2.12 2.35 2.84 100 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.32 1.81 2.29 2.50 3.10 200 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.71 2.30 2.92 3.48 4.81


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 75 (Thursday, April 18, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16214]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07818]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0713]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast, Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Correcting amendments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard published a document in the Federal Register
on March 4, 2019, concerning a final rule for the Safety Zone; Chicago
Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast, Chicago, IL. The final rule contained an
error in the coordinates within the regulatory text. This document
corrects the regulation.

DATES: This rule is effective May 20, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this rule,
call or email LT John Ramos, Waterways Management Division, Marine
Safety Unit Chicago, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Coast Guard's
correction to the final rule published March 4, 2019 (84 FR 7290). This
document corrects the coordinates for the location of the safety zone.
This is the first correction.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    Accordingly, 33 CFR part 165 is corrected by making the following
correcting amendments:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  165.931 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  165.931  Safety Zone, Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast,
Chicago, IL.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: The waters of
Lake Michigan within Chicago Harbor bounded by coordinates beginning at
41[deg]53'23.3'' N, 087[deg]36'04.5'' W; then south to 41[deg]53'11.8''
N, 087[deg]36'04.1'' W; then west to 41[deg]53'12.1'' N,
087[deg]35'40.5'' W; then north to 41[deg]53'23.6'' N,
087[deg]35'40.07'' W; then east back to the point of origin (NAD 83).
* * * * *

    Dated: April 15, 2019.
Thomas J. Stuhlreyer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2019-07818 Filed 4-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 235 (Friday, December 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57970-57971]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26520]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0141; FRL-9971-01]

Certain New Chemicals or Significant New Uses; Statements of
Findings for August and September 2017

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Section 5(g) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
requires EPA to publish in the Federal Register a statement of its
findings after its review of TSCA section 5(a) notices when EPA makes a
finding that a new chemical substance or significant new use is not
likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment. Such statements apply to premanufacture notices (PMNs),
microbial commercial activity notices (MCANs), and significant new use
notices (SNUNs) submitted to EPA under TSCA section 5. This document
presents statements of findings made by EPA on TSCA section 5(a)
notices during the period from August 1, 2017 to September 30, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Greg Schweer, Chemical Control Divison (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8469; email address: [email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the
Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this
action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action
applies directly to the submitters of the PMNs addressed in this
action.

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

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0141, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center
(EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 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 (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    This document lists the statements of findings made by EPA after
review of notices submitted under TSCA section 5(a) that certain new
chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to present
an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This
document presents statements of findings made by EPA during the period
from August 1, 2017 to September 30, 2017.

III. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    TSCA section 5(a)(3) requires EPA to review a TSCA section 5(a)
notice and make one of the following specific findings:
     The chemical substance or significant new use presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment;
     The information available to EPA is insufficient to permit
a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects of the
chemical substance or significant new use;
     The information available to EPA is insufficient to permit
a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects and the
chemical substance or significant new use may present an unreasonable
risk of injury to health or the environment;
     The chemical substance is or will be produced in
substantial quantities, and such substance either enters or may
reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial
quantities or there is or may be significant or substantial human
exposure to the substance; or
     The chemical substance or significant new use is not
likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment.
    Unreasonable risk findings must be made without consideration of
costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a
potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant
under the conditions of use. The term ``conditions of use'' is defined
in TSCA section 3 to mean ``the circumstances, as determined by the
Administrator, under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or
reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in
commerce, used, or disposed of.''
    EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to publish in the Federal
Register a statement of its findings after its review of a TSCA section
5(a) notice when EPA makes a finding that a new chemical substance or
significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment. Such statements apply to PMNs,
MCANs, and SNUNs sub mitted to EPA under TSCA section 5.
    Anyone who plans to manufacture (which includes import) a new
chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose and any
manufacturer or processor wishing to engage in a use of a chemical
substance designated by EPA as a significant new use must submit a
notice to EPA at least 90 days before commencing manufacture of the new
chemical substance or before engaging in the significant new use.
    The submitter of a notice to EPA for which EPA has made a finding
of ``not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment'' may commence manufacture of the chemical substance or
manufacture or processing for the significant new use notwithstanding
any remaining portion of the applicable review period.

IV. Statements of Administrator Findings Under TSCA Section 5(a)(3)(C)

    In this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent
that such information is not claimed as Confidential Business
Information (CBI)) on the PMNs, MCANs and SNUNs for which, during this
period, EPA has made findings under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) that the
new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to
present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment:
     EPA case number assigned to the TSCA section 5(a) notice.
     Chemical identity (generic name, if the specific name is
claimed as CBI).
     Web site link to EPA's decision document describing the
basis of the ``not likely to present an unreasonable risk'' finding
made by EPA under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C).
    EPA Case Number: P-17-0190; Chemical identity: Butanoic acid, 3-
oxo-, 2-[(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)oxy]ethyl ester, polymer with
cycloalkyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-
propenoate, methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and 2-methylpropyl 2-methyl-2-
propenoate (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-76.
    EPA Case Number: P-16-0508; Chemical identity: Terephthalic acid
and alcohol ester polymer hydroxy glycol and 2-Ethylhexyl alcohol;
polymer exemption flag (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-74.

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: November 20, 2017.
Greg Schweer,
Chief, New Chemicals Management Branch, Chemical Control Division,
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2017-26520 Filed 12-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P