[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 191 (Thursday, October 1, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61892-61895]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21564]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0858; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00949-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2016-07-14, which applies to certain Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113,
-114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214,
-231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -
212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2016-07-14 requires replacing
the clips, shear webs, and angles, related investigative actions, and
repair if necessary. Since the FAA issued AD 2016-07-14, it has been
determined that the fatigue life associated with the clips, shear webs,
and angles is not sufficient to reach the limit of validity (LOV) in
certain configurations; therefore, additional modifications to the
airplane are required. The FAA has also determined that additional
airplanes are subject to the unsafe condition. This proposed AD would
retain the actions of AD 2016-07-14, and require modifying (replacing)
the clips, shear webs, and angles at a certain rear fuselage area with
new parts, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD, which will be incorporated by reference. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November
16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For the material identified in this proposed AD that will be
incorporated by reference (IBR), contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer
3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR
material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view
this IBR material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2020-0858.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0858; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views about this proposal. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time. Send your
comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include
``Docket No. FAA-2020-0858; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00949-T'' at
the beginning of your comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments received by the closing
date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the
comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring
expense or delay. The FAA may change this NPRM because of those
comments.

Confidential Business Information

    Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by
its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552),
CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to
this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you
clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page
of your submission containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat
such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will
not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing
CBI should be sent to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Any commentary that the FAA receives which
is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public
docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    The FAA issued AD 2016-07-14, Amendment 39-18459 (81 FR 21244,
April 11, 2016) (``AD 2016-07-14''), which applies to certain Airbus
Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes;
Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model
A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD
2016-07-14 requires replacing the clips, shear webs, and angles at
certain rear fuselage sections and certain frames, including doing all
applicable related investigative actions, and repair if necessary. The
FAA issued AD 2016-07-14 to address fatigue damage on the clips, shear
webs, and angles, which could affect the structural integrity of the
airplane.

Actions Since AD 2016-07-14 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2016-07-14, it has been determined that the
fatigue life associated with the clips, shear webs, and angles at
section 19, frame (FR)72 and FR74, is not sufficient to reach the LOV
in a certain configuration; therefore, additional modifications to the
airplane are required. Airplanes have also been added to the
applicability. The FAA has determined that the unsafe condition also
affects Model A320-216 airplanes.
    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0153, dated July 10, 2020
(``EASA AD 2020-0153'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -
131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -215 -216, -
231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -
212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. EASA AD 2020-0153 superseded EASA
AD 2014-0177, dated July 25, 2014 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2016-07-
14). Model A320-215 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are
not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore
does not include those airplanes in the applicability.
    This proposed AD was prompted by fatigue testing that determined
that fatigue damage could appear on clips, shear webs, and angles at
certain rear fuselage sections and certain frames. The FAA is proposing
this AD to address fatigue damage on the clips, shear webs, and angles,
which could affect the structural integrity of the airplane. See the
MCAI for additional background information.

Explanation of Retained Requirements

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the
requirements of AD 2016-07-14, this proposed AD would retain all
requirements of AD 2016-07-14. This proposed AD would add airplanes to
the applicability. This proposed AD would also require a modification
by replacing the clips, shearwebs, and angles at the rear fuselage area
of section 19 at FR72 and FR74 with new parts without pilot holes, and
installing oversized Hi-Loks, nominal aluminum rivets, and nominal Hi-
Loks in certain positions. Those requirements are referenced in EASA AD
2020-0153, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this
proposed AD.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0153 describes procedures for replacement of affected
parts (as required by FAA AD 2016-07-14). EASA AD 2020-0153 also
describes procedures for a modification by replacing the clips,
shearwebs, and angles at the rear fuselage area of section 19 at FR72
and FR74 with new parts without pilot holes, and installing oversized
Hi-Loks, nominal aluminum rivets, and nominal Hi-Loks in certain
positions. This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2020-0153 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2020-0153
will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed
AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2020-0153 in its
entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular
section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only
with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to
``all required actions and compliance times,'' compliance with this AD
requirement is not limited to the section titled ``Required Action(s)
and Compliance Time(s)'' in the EASA AD. Service information specified
in EASA AD 2020-0153 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-
0153 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0858 after the FAA
final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 219 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained actions from AD 2016-07-14     Up to 110 work-hours x           $10,000         $19,350        $851,400
 (for 44 airplanes affected).            $85 per hour = $9,350.
New proposed actions..................  126 work-hours x $85 per          51,750          62,460      13,678,740
                                         hour = $10,710.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2016-07-14, Amendment 39-18459 (81 FR 21244, April 11, 2016), and
adding the following new AD:

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2020-0858; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-
00949-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by November 16, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2016-07-14, Amendment 39-18459 (81 FR 21244,
April 11, 2016) (``AD 2016-07-14'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS airplanes specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (3) of this AD, certificated in any category, as
identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-
0153, dated July 10, 2020 (``EASA AD 2020-0153'').
    (1) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132,
and -133 airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -
233 airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231,
and -232 airplanes.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by fatigue testing that determined that
fatigue damage could appear on clips, shear webs, and angles at
certain rear fuselage sections and certain frames. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address fatigue damage on the clips, shear webs,
and angles, which could affect the structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2020-0153.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0153

    The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0153 does not apply to
this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (i) 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.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2016-07-14 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of EASA AD 2020-0153 that are
required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2020-0153 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests

that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the
procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane
can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or
changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of
an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2020-0153, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You
may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2020-0858.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on September 24, 2020.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-21564 Filed 9-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 7, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55261]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22769]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-USCG-2010-1063]

Safety Zones; Annual Firework Displays Within the Captain of the
Port, Puget Sound Area of Responsibility

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones for annual
firework displays in the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound area of
responsibility on September 10, 2011 for the Mukilteo Lighthouse
Festival in Possession Sound, WA and on December 3, 2011 for Chimes and
Lights in Port Orchard, WA. This action is necessary to prevent injury
and to protect life and property of the maritime public from the
hazards associated with the firework displays. During the enforcement
periods, entry into, transit through, mooring, or anchoring within
these zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port,
Puget Sound or Designated Representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1332 will be enforced from 5 p.m.
on September 10, 2011 through 1 a.m. on September 11, 2011 and from 5
p.m. on December 3, 2011 through 1 a.m. on December 4, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or e-mail ENS Anthony P. LaBoy, Sector Puget Sound Waterways
Management, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety
zones established for Annual Fireworks Displays within the Captain of
the Port, Puget Sound Area of Responsibility in 33 CFR 165.1332 during
the dates and times noted below.
    The following safety zone will be enforced from 5 p.m. on September
10, 2011 through 1 a.m. on September 11, 2011:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Event name                 Location               Latitude                  Longitude           Radius
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mukilteo Lighthouse Festival..  Possession Sound.  47[deg]56.9' N             122[deg]18.6' W                300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following safety zone will be enforced from 5 p.m. on December
3, 2011 through 1 a.m. on December 4, 2011:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Event name                 Location               Latitude                  Longitude           Radius
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chimes and Lights.............  Port Orchard.....  47[deg]32.75' N            122[deg]38.033' W              300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All vessel operators who desire to enter the safety zone must
obtain permission from the Captain of the Port or Designated
Representative by contacting the Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound Joint
Harbor Operations Center (JHOC) via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local
law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1332 and 5
U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice, the Coast Guard will provide
the maritime community with extensive advanced notification of the
safety zones via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information
broadcasts on the day of the events.

    Dated: August 18, 2011.
S.J. Ferguson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2011-22769 Filed 9-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30015-30019]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12487]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0816; FRL-9928-23-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Delaware; Nonattainment New Source Review; Emission Offset Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
disapprove a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
(DNREC) for the State of Delaware on October 15, 2013. EPA is proposing
this action because the submittal does not satisfy the requirements of
Clean Air Act (CAA) or the Federal implementing regulations, which
establish the criteria under which the owner or operator of a new or
modified major stationary source must obtain the required emission
offsets ``from the same source or other sources in the same
nonattainment area'' with limited exceptions, for Delaware's
nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) preconstruction permitting
program. In addition, EPA is proposing disapproval of the SIP revision
because Delaware exercises authorities that are reserved for EPA under
section 107 of the CAA. This action is being taken under the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 25, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2013-0816 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0816, David Campbell, Associate Director,
Office of Permits and Air Toxics, 3AP10, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2013-0816. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401, Dover, Delaware
19903.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Johansen,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. CAA Sections 172(c)(5) and 173(c)(1)

    Under section 172(c)(5) of the CAA, a SIP is required to include
provisions which require permits for the construction and operation of
new or modified major stationary sources anywhere in a nonattainment
area in accordance with the requirements of section 173 of the CAA.\1\
Section 173, in turn, sets forth a series of requirements for the
issuance of permits for the owners or operators of new or modified
major stationary sources within nonattainment areas. Specifically,
section 173 provides inter alia that construction and operating permits
may only be issued if: (a) Sufficient offsetting emission reductions
have been obtained to reduce total emissions from existing sources and
the proposed source to the point where reasonable further progress
towards meeting the ambient air standards is maintained; and (b) the
proposed source is required to comply with the lowest achievable
emission rate (LAER).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A nonattainment area is the air quality control region
designated by EPA under CAA section 107 as not attaining a
particular National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for any of
the six criteria air pollutants.
    \2\ See CAA section 171(3), 42 U.S.C. 7501(3) (defining LAER).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Relevant to Delaware's SIP revision, CAA section 173(c) spells out
the offset requirements for the owners and operators of new or modified
major stationary sources. Specifically, section 173(c)(1) requires
``the owner or operator of a new or modified major source may comply
with any offset requirement in effect under this part for increased
emissions of any air pollutant only by obtaining emission reductions of
such air pollutant from the same source or other sources in the same
nonattainment area, except that the State may allow the owner or
operator of a source to obtain such emission reductions in another
nonattainment area if (A) the other area has an equal or higher
nonattainment classification than the area in which the source is
located and (B) emissions from such other area contribute to a
violation of the national ambient air quality standard in the
nonattainment area in which the source is located'' (emphasis added).

B. 40 CFR 51.165 and Appendix S to Part 51, the Emission Offsets
Interpretive Ruling

    40 CFR 51.165 contains the SIP requirements for nonattainment NSR
permit programs. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(F), SIPs must
contain provisions relating to the permissible location of offsetting
emissions which are at least as stringent as those set out in appendix
S, section IV.D. Appendix S sets forth EPA's interpretive ruling for
preconstruction review requirements for stationary sources of air
pollution under 40 CFR subpart I and section 129 of the CAA Amendments
of 1977. Appendix S specifies that, ``a major new source or major
modification which would locate in any area designated under section
107(d) of the Act as attainment or unclassifiable for ozone that is
located in an ozone transport region or which would locate in an area
designated in 40 CFR part 81, subpart C, as nonattainment for a
pollutant for which the source or modification would be major may be
allowed to construct only if the stringent conditions . . . are met.''
The goal of this section is to ensure there is progress towards
achievement of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).
Section IV.D of appendix S, ``Location of Offsetting Emissions,''
proscribes the acceptable areas from which a new or modified source can
obtain the required emissions offsets. The offsets must come from the
same source or other sources in the same nonattainment area. However,
the section provides that reviewing authorities may allow sources to
obtain offsets from other nonattainment areas provided that two
conditions are met: The nonattainment area from which the offsets are
obtained must be of equal or higher nonattainment classification, and
emissions from the area in which the offsets are obtained must
contribute to a violation of the NAAQS in the area in which the source
is located. These requirements are identical to the requirements in CAA
section 173(c).

    Delaware's SIP revision submittal, 7 DE Admin Code 1125 sections
2.5.5 and 2.5.6, which were revised by Delaware effective September 11,
2013, does not meet the requirements in CAA section 173(c), 40 CFR
51.165(a)(3)(ii)(F) and appendix S, section IV.D.1, because the
identified sections allow emissions offsets to be used from areas not
designated by EPA pursuant to CAA section 107 as an area of equal or
higher nonattainment classification for any ozone NAAQS and do not
address contribution requirements in the CAA and its implementing
regulations.

C. CAA Section 107

    Under CAA section 107(c), the Administrator of the EPA is given the
authority to designate as an air quality control region any interstate
area or major intrastate area which she deems appropriate for the
attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards. CAA
section 107(d) provides the process for the Administrator of EPA, with
recommendations from Governors, to designate areas or portions of areas
within states as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable upon
promulgation or revision of a NAAQS.
    Pursuant to section 107 of the CAA, New Castle and Sussex Counties,
Delaware were designated by EPA for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS as
``marginal'' nonattainment under 40 CFR part 81, while Kent County was
designated as ``unclassifiable/attainment.'' See 77 FR 30088 (May 21,
2012). New Castle County is a portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-
Atlantic City marginal nonattainment area (Philadelphia Area) for the
2008 8-Hour ozone NAAQS.
    Upon designation, a nonattainment area for ozone is required to
meet the plan submission requirements under section 182 of the CAA (in
subpart 2 of Part D of Title I of the CAA) for each nonattainment area
classification (marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme) as
well as the general SIP planning requirements in sections 172 and 173
of subpart 1 of Part D of Title I. The State of Delaware is unique
because it is part of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), as established
in CAA section 184(a). Therefore, at a minimum, the entire State of
Delaware is required to meet the plan submission requirements for a
moderate nonattainment area classification as specified in CAA sections
182(b) and 184(b). Moderate area classification plan requirements
include the emissions offset provisions within section 173 of the CAA
and within its implementing regulations.

D. Delaware's Approved 7 DE Admin. Code 1125--Requirements for
Preconstruction Review

    For purposes of satisfying CAA sections 172 and 173, Delaware
presently has a fully-approved nonattainment NSR preconstruction
permitting program. See 77 FR 60053 (October 2, 2012). Typically,
disapproval of a Part D NSR SIP revision would trigger sanctions under
section 179 of the CAA and a requirement for EPA to impose a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) in lieu of an approved SIP pursuant to
section 110(c) of the CAA. However, in this case, Delaware's existing
nonattainment NSR SIP is fully approved as meeting CAA requirements and
there are no SIP deficiencies. Therefore, sanctions under CAA section
179 and FIP provisions under CAA section 110(c) are not triggered by
the disapproval of this SIP revision. Delaware remains obligated to
implement its Federally-approved nonattainment NSR preconstruction
permitting program in accordance with CAA section 173.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On October 15, 2013, DNREC submitted a proposed revision to
Delaware's SIP to EPA for approval. The proposed revision is to 7 DE
Admin. Code 1125, Requirements for Preconstruction Review, sections
2.5.5 and 2.5.6, Emission Offset Provisions.\3\ EPA has reviewed
Delaware's proposed SIP revision and determined that it does not comply
with the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173(c)(1) or the
Federal implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.165 and part 51, appendix
S, section IV.D for several reasons. In addition, in the proposed
revisions to 7 DE Admin. Code 1125, sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.6, Delaware
exercises authorities that are reserved solely for EPA in CAA section
107 by treating certain areas as ozone nonattainment areas regardless
of EPA's classification of those states for attainment of the ozone
NAAQS, and therefore EPA proposes to disapprove this SIP revision
submittal as not in accordance with the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ DNREC's revised 7 DE Admin. Code 1125, section 2.5.5 and
2.5.6 became effective September 11, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the revised regulation enables sources in Delaware seeking
NSR permits to obtain emission offsets from sources located in other
areas, including areas outside of the State of Delaware, irrespective
of the area's nonattainment status as compared to Delaware's
nonattainment status for the same NAAQS.\4\ CAA section 173 and its
implementing regulations clearly require emission offsets for NSR
permits to come from the same area where a source is located or from an
area with the same or higher nonattainment classification as the area
where a source is locating or located.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 7 DE Admin. Code 1125, section 2.5.5, as revised September
11, 2013, provides that Delaware may consider certain states as
having the same nonattainment classifications as the area of
Delaware where offsets are to be used including Connecticut,
Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri,
New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin. EPA notes that several of
these states have no areas classified by EPA under CAA section 107
as nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS. In addition, several of the
specified states are not part of the OTR established pursuant to CAA
section 184 which would treat areas within those states as Moderate
nonattainment of an ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the revised regulation also permits sources seeking NSR
permits in Delaware to obtain emissions offsets from areas without a
determination that the other areas ``contribute to violation'' of the
NAAQS in Delaware where a source seeking a NSR permit would be located
as required in CAA section 173 and its implementing regulations. The
language in section 2.5.6 in 7 DE Admin. Code 1125 provides that
sources can obtain emission offsets ``in the nonattainment area which
the source is located which shall specifically include any area in the
States of Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Delaware's October 15, 2013 SIP revision claims contribution
from these specified states to ozone nonattainment or interference
with maintenance of ozone NAAQS in Delaware is supported by EPA
modeling conducted for the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
(76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011)). However, EPA notes that the EPA
CSAPR modeling was conducted to determine contribution to
nonattainment or interference with maintenance for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS. Delaware's SIP revision did not include
any information supporting ``contribution to violation'' for the
2008 ozone NAAQS to meet requirements in section 173(c)(1) that
emission offsets come from an area which contributes to violation of
the NAAQS where the source seeking a permit is located.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the revised regulation language allows Delaware to
exercise authorities that are reserved solely for EPA in CAA section
107 by allowing ``the Department'' to determine the areas in which
owners or operators can acquire emission offsets, regardless of the
attainment status of the area. Specifically, Delaware is proposing
language for the SIP that ``the Department may consider any area in the
following states as having the same nonattainment classification as the
area

of Delaware where the offsets are used: Connecticut, Delaware,
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey,
New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West
Virginia and Wisconsin.'' See 7 DE Admin. Code 1125 section 2.5.5. As
discussed in the Background Section of this proposal, under CAA section
107(c), only the Administrator of the EPA is given the authority to
designate as an air quality control region any interstate area or major
intrastate area which she deems appropriate for the attainment and
maintenance of ambient air quality standards. The State of Delaware has
no such authority under the CAA to designate areas for nonattainment
with the NAAQS to meet requirements in CAA section 173(c)(1) that
emission offsets must be from areas in the same or higher attainment
classification for a NAAQS. Therefore, Delaware's regulation does not
meet the requirements in CAA 173(c)(1) or its implementing regulations
in 40 CFR 51.165 and in appendix S as Delaware lacks authority to
designate areas ``nonattainment'' for emission offset requirements.
    Thus, because Delaware's revised regulation 7 DE Admin. Code 1125,
sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.6 does not comply with requirements in CAA
section 172(c)(5) and 173(c)(1) and the implementing regulations in 40
CFR 51.165 and appendix S, EPA finds the revision does not meet CAA
requirements in the statute or in its implementing regulations. In
addition, Delaware's revision to 7 DE Admin. Code 1125, section 2.5.5
inappropriately allows Delaware to treat areas as nonattainment for
emission offset requirements when only EPA possesses such authority
under the CAA to designate areas nonattainment, and thus EPA
additionally finds the revision does not meet requirements in the CAA.
Therefore, EPA proposes to disapprove the October 15, 2013 SIP
revision.

III. Proposed Action

    Pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3), EPA is proposing to disapprove
Delaware's October 15, 2013 SIP revision related to nonattainment NSR
preconstruction permit program requirements for emission offsets.
Specifically, Delaware's October 15, 2013 proposed SIP revision seeks
to expand the geographical area in which owners and operators of new or
modified major stationary sources may obtain emissions offsets,
regardless of the area's attainment classification for the ozone NAAQS
and without specific requirements that the area ``contribute to
violation'' of the ozone NAAQS in the area in which a new or modified
source is locating or located. EPA proposes to disapprove this SIP
revision for two reasons: (1) Delaware's proposed emissions offset
provision language does not comport with the specific requirements
under CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173(c)(1) or the Federal implementing
regulations in 40 CFR 51.165 and appendix S; and (2) Delaware lacks
legal authority to designate an area as nonattainment under CAA section
107(c) and (d).
    Under CAA section 179(a)(2), final disapproval pursuant to CAA
section 110(k) of a submission that addresses a requirement of a Part D
Plan (CAA sections 171-193), starts a sanction clock. While Delaware's
SIP revision addresses the Part D Plan requirement for a NSR permitting
program, Delaware presently has a fully-approved NSR permit program.
See 77 FR 60053. Thus, there is no deficiency in Delaware's SIP.
Therefore, if EPA takes final action to disapprove this SIP submission,
no sanctions under CAA section 179 will be triggered.
    The full or partial disapproval of a SIP revision in general also
triggers the requirement under CAA section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a
FIP no later than two years from the date of the disapproval unless the
State corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan
or plan revision before the Administrator promulgates such FIP. As
previously discussed, Delaware's SIP is not deficient as Delaware has a
fully-approved NSR preconstruction permit program. Therefore, if EPA
takes final action to disapprove this submission, no FIP requirements
for EPA under CAA section 110(c) will be triggered.
    EPA is soliciting public comments only on the issues discussed in
this document. These comments will be considered before taking final
action. Sources in Delaware are reminded that they remain subject to
the requirements of Delaware's Federally-approved nonattainment NSR
preconstruction permit program in 7 DE Admin. Code 1125 (approved by
EPA on October 2, 2012) and are subject to potential enforcement for
violations of the SIP including failure to comply with NSR permit
requirements and specifically with emission offset requirements in CAA
section 173 and in the Federally-enforceable Delaware SIP. See EPA's
Revised Guidance on Enforcement During Pending SIP Revisions (March 1,
1991).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this case, EPA is
proposing to disapprove Delaware's October 15, 2013 SIP submittal
because it does not meet Federal requirements. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule, to disapprove Delaware's October
15, 2013 SIP revision related to emission offset provisions, does not
have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in
Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: May 13, 2015.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2015-12487 Filed 5-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 92)]
[Notices]
[Page 27754-27755]
[DOCID:fr12my06-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53763; File No. 4-208]

Intermarket Trading System; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of the Twenty Third Amendment to the ITS Plan Relating to
the Interaction of Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. With ITS, the Change in
Opening of Trading in a Halted Security, and the Change in Name from
the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. to New York Stock Exchange LLC and
From Pacific Exchange, Inc. to NYSE Arca, Inc.

May 5, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 24, 2006, the ITS Participants, through the ITS Operating
Committee, submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed amendment (``Twenty Third Amendment'') to
the restated ITS Plan.\3\ The purpose of the Twenty Third Amendment is
to recognize the manner in which Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'')
will interact with ITS, to allow Participant markets to open trading in
a halted security after a shorter period of time after a re-indication,
and to reflect the name changes from the New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
to New York Stock Exchange LLC and from Pacific Exchange, Inc. to NYSE
Arca, Inc. Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(ii) under the Act,\4\ the ITS
Participants designated the amendment as concerned solely with the
administration of the Plan. As a result, the Twenty Third Amendment has
become effective upon filing with the Commission.\5\ At any time within
60 days of the filing of the amendment, the Commission may summarily
abrogate the amendment and require that such amendment be refiled in
accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 608 and reviewed in accordance
with paragraph (b)(2) of Rule 608, if it appears to the Commission that
such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a
national market system or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ The ITS Plan is a National Market System (``NMS'') plan,
which was designed to facilitate intermarket trading in exchange-
listed equity securities based on current quotation information
emanating from the linked markets. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 19456 (January 27, 1983), 48 FR 4938 (February 3, 1983).
    The ITS Participants currently include the American Stock
Exchange LLC (Amex''), the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE'');
the Chicago Boad Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE''); the Chicago
Stock Exchange (``CHX''), Inc., the National Stock Exchange
(``NSX''), the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD''), NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ''), the New York Stock
Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE''), the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (``PCX''), and
the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'') (``Participants'').
    \4\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(3)(ii).
    \5\ CHX intends to give ITS Participants 10 days notice prior to
implementation of the amended manner of CHX's interaction with ITS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 I. Description and Purpose of the Proposed Amendment

A. CHX's Interaction With ITS

    The ITS Participants propose to amend the restated ITS Plan to
eliminate all references to CHX in Section 6(a)(ii)(A) and to add new
subparagraph (H) to section 6(a)(ii). Proposed new language is
italicized:
    (H) Description Applicable to CHX
    With respect to an ITS transaction that involves a CHX member, the
commitment to trade or response thereto destined for or originating
with the CHX will leave and enter the System at the CHX. A trade
involving the CHX would take place as follows. In the example in
section 6(a)(ii)(A) above, assume that the order is for 300 shares.
Assume also that when the NYSE member checks the continuously updated
quotation display at the appropriate NYSE trading post, he sees that
the best offer is one of 40.15 for 300 shares from the CHX. Having
learned this information, the NYSE member may decide to attempt to buy
the 300 shares for his customer from the 40.15 offer. By using an ITS
station located on the NYSE trading floor, the broker would send, or
cause to be sent, to the CHX a commitment to buy 300 shares of the
stock at 40.15.
    When the commitment to buy is entered into the System, the System
will route the commitment to the CHX. If the 40.15 offer is still
available when the commitment to buy reaches the CHX, or if a better
offer is available and if the rules of the CHX permit an execution at
that price, then the CHX would generate an acceptance of the commitment
on behalf of the one or more CHX members responsible for the 40.15
offer (or the better offer) and route it to the System. The execution
would occur at 40.15 (or at the better price) if the applicable time
period had not expired. CHX would report the trade to the CTA Plan
Processor for dissemination under the CTA Plan at 40.15 (or at the
better price)

with the same identifier that is assigned to CHX.
    If the example is reversed and a CHX member seeks to purchase 300
shares, the CHX member would send the NYSE a commitment to buy 300
shares of the stock at 40.15.
    When the commitment to buy is entered into the CHX, the CHX will
route the commitment to the System, which will in turn route the
commitment to the NYSE. If the 40.15 offer is still available when the
commitment to buy reaches the NYSE, or if a better offer is available,
and if the rules of the NYSE permit an execution at that price, then
the NYSE offer would accept the commitment during the applicable time
period and an execution at 40.15 (or at the better price) would take
place. The NYSE would then report the trade to the CTA Plan Processor
for dissemination under the CTA Plan at 40.15 (or at the better price)
with the identifier assigned to the NYSE.
    This description shall take effect upon 10 days' written notice
from the CHX to all Participants.

B. Opening of Trading in a Halted Security

    The ITS Participants propose to amend the restated ITS Plan to have
Section (b)(i)(B) of Exhibit A (``Tape Indications'') read as follows.
Proposed new language is italicized:
* * * * *
    In any such situation, the specialist shall not open or reopen the
security until not less than three minutes after his transmission of
the opening or reopening indication of interest. However, where more
than one indication is disseminated, a stock may re-open one minute
after the last indication, provided that at least three minutes must
have elapsed from the dissemination of the first indication. For the
purposes of paragraphs (b)(ii)(A), (b)(ii)(B), (b)(iii) and (c), ``pre-
opening notification'' includes an indication of interest furnished to
the consolidated last sale reporting service.

C. Renumbering

    The ITS Participants propose to renumber former section 6(a)(ii)(H)
as section 6(a)(ii)(I).

D. Name Change

    The ITS Participants propose to reflect the name changes from the
New York Stock Exchange, Inc. to New York Stock Exchange LLC and from
Pacific Exchange, Inc. to NYSE Arca, Inc. to reflect the legal name
changes that occurred on March 7, 2006.

E. Additional Information

1. Governing or Constituent Documents
    Not applicable.
2. Implementation of Amendment
    The ITS Participants have manifested their approval of the proposed
amendment by means of their execution of the Twenty Third Amendment.
The Amendment has become effective upon filing.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Development and Implementation Phases
    Not applicable.
4. Analysis of Impact on Competition
    The Participants believe that the proposed amendment does not
impose any burden on competition.
5. Written Understanding or Agreements Relating to Interpretation of,
or Participation in, Plan
    Not applicable.
6. Approval by Sponsors in Accordance With Plan
    Under section 4(c) of the restated ITS Plan, the requisite approval
of the amendment is achieved by execution of the amendment on behalf of
each ITS Participant. The amendment is so executed.
 7. Description of Operation of Facility Contemplated by the Proposed
Amendment
    Not applicable.
8. Terms and Conditions of Access
    Not applicable.
9. Method of Determination and Imposition, and Amount of, Fees and
Charges
    Not applicable.
10. Method of Frequency of Processor Evaluation
    Not applicable.
11. Dispute Resolution
    Not applicable.

II. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed Plan
amendment 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. 4-208 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. 4-208. This file number should
be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 Plan amendment that are filed
with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the
proposed Plan amendment 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of the ITS. 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 No. 4-208 and
should be submitted on or before June 2, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(27).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-7244 Filed 5-11-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23568-23569]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09180]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0937]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Clinical Laboratory
Improvement Amendments Waiver Applications

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 20,
2013.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0598.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Gittleson, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments Waiver Applications--(OMB
Control Number 0910-0598)--Extension

    Congress passed the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments
(CLIA) (Public Law 100-578) in 1988 to establish quality standards for
all laboratory testing. The purpose was to ensure the accuracy,
reliability, and timeliness of patient test results regardless of where
the test took place. CLIA requires that clinical laboratories obtain a
certificate from the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the
Secretary), before accepting materials derived from the human body for
laboratory tests (42 U.S.C. 263a(b)). Laboratories that perform only
tests that are ``simple'' and that have an ``insignificant risk of an
erroneous result'' may obtain a certificate of waiver (42 U.S.C.
263a(d)(2)). The Secretary has delegated to FDA the authority to
determine whether particular tests (waived tests) are ``simple'' and
have ``an insignificant risk of an erroneous result'' under CLIA (69 FR
22849, April 27, 2004).
    On January 30, 2008, FDA published a guidance document entitled
``Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Recommendations for Clinical
Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) Waiver Applications
for Manufacturers of In Vitro Diagnostic Devices'' (http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm079632.htm). This guidance document describes recommendations for
device manufacturers submitting to FDA an application for determination
that a cleared or approved device meets this CLIA standard (CLIA waiver
application). The guidance recommends that CLIA waiver applications
include a description of the features of the device that make it
``simple''; a report describing a hazard analysis that identifies
potential sources of error, including a summary of the design and
results of flex studies and conclusions drawn from the flex studies; a
description of fail-safe and failure alert mechanisms and a description
of the studies validating these mechanisms; a description of clinical
tests that demonstrate the accuracy of the test in the hands of
intended operators; and statistical analyses of clinical study results.
    The total number of reporting and recordkeeping hours is 143,200
hours. FDA bases the burden on an Agency analysis of premarket
submissions with clinical trials similar to the waived laboratory
tests. Based on previous years' experience with CLIA waiver
applications, FDA expects 40 manufacturers to submit one CLIA waiver
application per year. The time required to prepare and submit a waiver
application, including the time needed to assemble supporting data,
averages 780 hours per waiver application for a total of 31,200 hours
for reporting.
    Based on previous years' experience with CLIA waiver applications,
FDA expects that each manufacturer will spend 2,800 hours creating and
maintaining the record for a total of 112,000 hours. The total
operating and maintenance cost associated with the

waiver application is estimated at $66,200. The cost consists of
specimen collection for the clinical study (estimated $23,500);
laboratory supplies, reference testing and study oversight (estimated
$26,700); shipping and office supplies (estimated $6,000); and
educational materials, including quick reference instructions
(estimated $10,000).
    In the Federal Register of September 14, 2012 (77 FR 56846), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. FDA received one PRA-related comment.
    The comment asserts that the amount of time per response and the
cost associated with a waiver application are underestimated. FDA has
revised its estimates based on the comment received on the 60-day
Federal Register notice. As shown below, FDA is increasing the hours
per response from 780 to 1,200 hours. FDA is also increasing the
estimated operating and maintenance cost burden from $66,200 to
$350,000.
    The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (including both the
Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and the Division of Biostatistics)
maintains dialogue with industry representatives (the Advanced Medical
Technology Association), regarding development of additional options
regarding study design and data analysis approaches for certain devices
to demonstrate they are suitable candidates for waiver.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Number of
                  Activity                       Number of      responses per     Total annual    Average burden    Total hours     Total operating and
                                                respondents       respondent       responses       per response                      maintenance costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLIA waiver application.....................              40                1               40            1,200           48,000               $350,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs associated with this collection of information.

                                                    Table 2--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of                       Average burden
                              Activity                                  Number of       records per      Total annual         per          Total hours
                                                                      recordkeepers     recordkeeper       records       recordkeeping
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLIA waiver records................................................              40                1               40            2,800          112,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: April 15, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-09180 Filed 4-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


               Conference Call with EPA and Airlines for America
                               October 16, 2012

Attendees:
EPA OUST:
Liz McDermott, Linda Gerber, Tim Smith, Tim Roberts, Erin Knighton, Cho Yi Kwan, Tim Smith

Airlines for America:
Nancy Young
Tim Pohle

Airports Council International-North America:
Katherine Preston

On this conference call EPA and the Airlines for America discussed comments on the proposed changes to the UST regulations.  The discussion focused on the proposed changes to previously deferred airport hydrant systems and the universe of commercial airports that would fall under the proposed regulations and the additional information EPA is collecting on these airports.


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS

CG-543 Policy Letter 11-07 National Maritime Center Policy Letter 01-02 National Maritime Center Policy Letter 16-02

PAGES:  107


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 91 (Friday, May 10, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20671-20673]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09632]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85782; File No. SR-ICEEU-2019-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICE Clear Europe
Operational Risk Management Policy (``ORM Policy'')

May 6, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 1, 2019, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'' or the
``Clearing House'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule changes described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by ICE Clear
Europe. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on
the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    ICE Clear Europe proposes to formalize its Operational Risk
Management Policy (``ORM Policy''), which consolidates its practices
with respect to management of operational risk. The revisions do not
involve any changes to the ICE Clear Europe Clearing Rules or
Procedures.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the
meanings specified in the ICE Clear Europe Clearing Rules (the
``Rules'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

(a) Purpose
    ICE Clear Europe is proposing to formalize its ORM Policy which
sets out the Clearing House's processes for managing operational risks,
the stakeholders responsible for executing those processes, the
frequency of review of the policy and the governance and reporting
lines for the policy.
    The ORM Policy addresses operational risk, which it defines as the
risk of an event occurring which negatively impacts the achievement of
business objectives resulting from inadequate or failed internal
operational controls, people, systems or external events.\4\ The ORM
Policy establishes an overall process that identifies, assesses,
responds to, monitors and reports operational risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The ORM Policy notes several non-exhaustive examples of
operational risk, including risks from internal and external fraud,
employment practices and workplace safety, clients, products and
business practices, damage to physical assets and business
disruption and system failures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Risk Identification: Risk identification is performed by the
business areas and lines exposed to the risk (referred to as ``risk
owners'') at least once each year, and is overseen by the Risk
Oversight Department. Risk owners must map their existing processes,
linking them to business objectives and identify operational risks
where an event might negatively impact the achievement of a business
objective. Risk sources must also be identified.
    Risk Assessment: Risk assessment is conducted by the risk owners at
least once per year in conjunction with risk identification. The
potential impact of the risk, including its potential severity and
likelihood, are to be evaluated. More frequent ad hoc assessments may
be necessary if risks emerge or disappear between annual reviews. For
most operational risks, control mechanisms may already exist, in which
case uncontrolled and controlled impacts are measured. Risk owners must
also assess the sufficiency of existing control mechanisms on a
quarterly or, if necessary, a more frequent ad hoc basis.
    Risk Response: Risk owners are responsible for proposing and
implementing remedial actions, which must be approved by the ICE Clear
Europe Executive Risk Committee (the ``ERC''). Depending upon the
potential expected impact of the operational risk and the Clearing
House risk appetite, the four possible responses to a risk are to treat
or mitigate the risk, tolerate or accept the risk, transfer the risk to
another party (such as through insurance) or terminate the activity
carrying the risk.
    Risk Monitoring: Risk owners must monitor the identified
operational risk daily through the use of key performance indicators,
key risk indicators and other risk indicators such as their own
management limits. The Risk Oversight Department itself monitors risks
daily through risk appetite metrics and management thresholds as well
as operational incidents raised by the risk owners. Risk owners and the
Risk Oversight Department also must monitor the performance of control
mechanisms on a regular and frequent basis.
    Risk Reporting and Oversight: Overall oversight of the policy rests
with the Audit Committee and Risk Oversight Department. Specifically,
the results of risk assessments must be reported to the Audit Committee
and the Board Risk Committee (the ``BRC'') when material changes are
observed. Control

assessments and operational incidents must be regularly reported to
senior management, the Audit Committee and the BRC for appropriate
action. The BRC and Board will also be informed of relevant incidents
as part of routine reporting. Operational metrics will be provided to
the Board and BRC monthly and the ERC daily. The product Risk
Committees shall also have access to operational metrics following
their schedule of meetings. Unexpected results of operational metrics
require escalation and notification to the Board immediately following
the event. Identified operational risks must also be compared against
established thresholds and reported to the ERC daily and monthly. The
ORM Policy itself is subject to review on a biennial basis or in the
event of a material change.
(b) Statutory Basis
    ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed amendments are
consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \5\ and the
regulations thereunder applicable to it. In particular, Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \6\ requires, among other things, that the
rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to
the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions, the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody
or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible, and
the protection of investors and the public interest. By formalizing ICE
Clear Europe's operational risk management and governance process, the
amendments are intended to enhance ICE Clear Europe's ability to
identify and respond to operational risks presented by its clearing
activities. The amendments will thus promote the prompt and accurate
clearing of cleared contracts and protects investors and the public
interest in the sound operations of the clearing house. Increasing the
ability of ICE Clear Europe to identify and respond to operational
risks may also enhance the safeguarding of securities and funds in the
custody or control of the Clearing House or for which it is
responsible, and avoid potential disruption of access to such assets as
a result of operational risks. Accordingly, the amendments satisfy the
requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The policy is also consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(17)(i).\8\ The ORM Policy is designed to enhance the ability of
ICE Clear Europe to identify relevant sources of operational risk,
monitor them on an ongoing basis and take appropriate action to respond
to such risks. The amendments will therefore facilitate the ongoing
identification and mitigation of operational risk, within the meaning
of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17)(i).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(17)(i). The rule states that ``[e]ach
covered clearing agency shall establish, implement, maintain and
enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, as
applicable: Manage the covered clearing agency's operational risks
by:
    (i) Identifying the plausible sources of operational risk, both
internal and external, and mitigating their impact through the use
of appropriate systems, policies, procedures, and controls.
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(17)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed amendments would
have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The amendments
are being adopted to strengthen the Clearing House's internal
operational risk management processes and governance and should not
affect the rights or obligations of Clearing Members. As a result, ICE
Clear Europe does not believe the amendments will affect the cost of
clearing for Clearing Members or other market participants, the market
for cleared services generally or access to clearing by Clearing
Members or other market participants, or otherwise affect competition
among Clearing Members or market participants.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed amendments have not been
solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify
the Commission of any written comments received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.
    The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions
required with respect to the proposal are completed.

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-ICEEU-2019-009 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2019-009. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Europe and on ICE
Clear Europe's website at https://www.theice.com/clear-europe/regulation.
    All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying

information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2019-009 and should be submitted
on or before May 31, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-09632 Filed 5-9-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 22 (Monday, February 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6194-6195]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02130]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 10489-013]

River Falls Municipal Utilities; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of
the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 10489-013.
    c. Date Filed: November 27, 2013.
    d. Submitted By: River Falls Municipal Utilities.

    e. Name of Project: River Falls Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Kinnickinnic River, in Pierce county,
Wisconsin.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Brian Hatch, City of River Falls,
222 Lewis Street, River Falls, WI 54022;<PHONE_NUMBER>; email_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Bryan Roden-Reynolds at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. River Falls Municipal Utilities filed its request to use the
Traditional Licensing Process on November 27, 2013, and provided public
notice of its request on December 5, 2013. In a letter dated January
27, 2014, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved
River Falls Municipal Utilities' request to use the Traditional
Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at
50 CFR, Part 402; and (b) the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation
Officer, as required by section 106, National Historical Preservation
Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating River Falls Municipal
Utilities as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying
out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. River Falls Municipal Utilities filed a Pre-Application Document
(PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the
Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at
the address in paragraph h.
    o. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

     Dated: January 27, 2014.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-02130 Filed 1-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 133 (Friday, July 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 41655]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15032]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 15, 2020.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topic:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.

    Dated: July 8, 2020.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-15032 Filed 7-8-20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 71)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19746-19747]
[DOCID:fr11ap08-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[USCG-2008-0228]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Norwalk River, Norwalk, CT

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the
Washington Street S136 Bridge, across the Norwalk River, mile 0.0, at
Norwalk, Connecticut. While in effect, this deviation allows the bridge
owner to open only one of the two moveable spans for bridge openings.
Vessels that require a full two-span bridge opening will be required to
provide at least a twelve-hour advance notice by calling the bridge
operator. This deviation is necessary to facilitate scheduled bridge
maintenance.

DATES: This deviation is effective from April 1, 2008 through April 30,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0228 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection
or copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and
the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, One South Street,
New York, New York, 10004, between 7

a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays,
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>. The First Coast Guard District Bridge
Branch Office maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First
Coast Guard District, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Washington Street S136 Bridge, across
the Norwalk River, mile 0.0, at Norwalk, Connecticut, has a vertical
clearance in the closed position of 9 feet at mean high water and 16
feet at mean low water. The existing regulations are listed at 33 CFR
117.217(a).
    The owner of the bridge, Connecticut Department of Transportation,
requested a temporary deviation to facilitate scheduled structural
maintenance and painting at the bridge.
    In order to perform the structural and bridge painting operations,
one of the two moveable spans must remain in the closed position in
order to erect paint containment and perform the required bridge
maintenance.
    We issued a temporary deviation (USCG-2007-0185; 73 FR 1273, Jan.
8, 2008) authorizing single leaf operation for bridge painting
effective from January 2, 2008 through March 31, 2008. On March 13,
2008, the bridge owner requested that the single leaf operation for
bridge painting continue through the end of April 2008, to allow
completion of this project.
    Under this second temporary deviation the Washington Street S136
Bridge across the Norwalk River, mile 0.0, at Norwalk, Connecticut,
need open only one of the two moveable spans for bridge openings from
April 1, 2008 through April 30, 2008. Vessels requiring a full two-span
bridge opening may do so provided that they give at least a twelve-hour
advance notice to the bridge operator by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Should the bridge maintenance authorized by this temporary
deviation be completed before the end of the effective period published
in this notice, the Coast Guard will rescind the remainder of this
temporary deviation, and the bridge shall be returned to its normal
operating schedule. Notice of the above action shall be provided to the
public in the Local Notice to Mariners and the Federal Register, where
practicable.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: April 1, 2008.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
 [FR Doc. E8-7675 Filed 4-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: December 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 236)] [CORRECTIONS]                [Page 71241] [DOCID:fr08de06-157]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 239 and 258

[EPA-R07-RCRA-2006-0878; FRL-8242-6]

  Adequacy of Nebraska Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Program

Correction

    In rule document E6-19388 beginning on page 66686 in the issue of  Thursday, November 16, 2006, make the following correction:     On page 66686, in the third column, under the DATES heading, in the  fourth line, ``January 16, 2007'' should read ``December 18, 2006''.

[FR Doc. Z6-19388 Filed 12-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D