[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 136 (Monday, July 16, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32766-32768]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15059]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31202; Amdt. No. 3807]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain
airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption
of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective July 16, 2018. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of July 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to
register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA
forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete description of
each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their
applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport
and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part
97 of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and

ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public
procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the
public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d), good cause
exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and
(3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 29, 2018.
John S. Duncan,
Executive Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113,
40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 16 August 2018

Deland, FL, Deland Muni-Sidney H Taylor Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5,
Orig-B
Deland, FL, Deland Muni-Sidney H Taylor Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12,
Orig-A
Deland, FL, Deland Muni-Sidney H Taylor Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23,
Orig-A
Deland, FL, Deland Muni-Sidney H Taylor Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30,
Orig-A
Easton, MD, Easton/Newnam Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 4, Amdt 2B
Easton, MD, Easton/Newnam Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig-B
Easton, MD, Easton/Newnam Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig-B
Dayton, OH, James M Cox Dayton Intl, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 24R, Orig-C
Norwalk, OH, Norwalk-Huron County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Orig-B
Martin, SD, Martin Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 1

Effective 13 September 2018

Ambler, AK, Ambler, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1A
Galena, AK, Edward G Pitka SR, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Amdt 3
Galena, AK, Edward G Pitka SR, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 3
Galena, AK, Edward G Pitka SR, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
Golovin, AK, Golovin NOME TWO, Graphic DP
Golovin, AK, Golovin, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Amdt 1
Golovin, AK, Golovin, RNAV (GPS)-A, Amdt 1
Golovin, AK, Golovin, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Flippin, AR, Marion County Rgnl, VOR-A, Amdt 15, CANCELED
Pocahontas, AR, Pocahontas Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig
Pocahontas, AR, Pocahontas Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig
Pocahontas, AR, Pocahontas Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
Pocahontas, AR, Pocahontas Muni, VOR OR GPS RWY 36, Amdt 6, CANCELED
Fort Huachuca/Sierra Vista, AZ, Sierra Vista Muni-Libby AAF, NDB RWY
26, Amdt 4, CANCELED
San Bernardino, CA, San Bernardino Intl, ILS OR LOC Z RWY 6, Amdt 3
San Bernardino, CA, San Bernardino Intl, LOC Y RWY 6, Amdt 1
San Bernardino, CA, San Bernardino Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 6, Amdt 1
San Bernardino, CA, San Bernardino Intl, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 6, Amdt 1
Sterling, CO, Sterling Muni, NDB RWY 33, Amdt 3B, CANCELED
DeFuniak Springs, FL, DeFuniak Springs, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1A
Immokalee, FL, Immokalee Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 2A
Albany, GA, Southwest Georgia Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 4, Amdt 13A
West Union, IA, George L Scott Muni, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 4, CANCELED
Champaign/Urbana, IL, University of Illinois-Willard, VOR RWY 4,
Amdt 12A
Champaign/Urbana, IL, University of Illinois-Willard, VOR RWY 14L,
Orig-B
Champaign/Urbana, IL, University of Illinois-Willard, VOR RWY 22,
Amdt 8A
Chicago, IL, Chicago O'Hare Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 20D
Lawrenceville, IL, Lawrenceville-Vincennes Intl, VOR RWY 36, Amdt
1C, CANCELED
Mount Carmel, IL, Mount Carmel Muni, VOR/DME RWY 22, Amdt 10A,
CANCELED
Anderson, IN, Anderson Muni-Darlington Field, NDB RWY 30, Amdt 8A
Fort Wayne, IN, Fort Wayne Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 32, Amdt 31A
Huntington, IN, Huntington Muni, NDB RWY 9, Amdt 2, CANCELED
Jeffersonville, IN, Clark Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 18, Amdt 4
Jeffersonville, IN, Clark Rgnl, NDB RWY 18, Amdt 3
Jeffersonville, IN, Clark Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1
Jeffersonville, IN, Clark Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 3
Richmond, IN, Richmond Muni, VOR RWY 6, Amdt 12A, CANCELED
Shelbyville, IN, Shelbyville Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 1C
Winchester, IN, Randolph County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Amdt 2
Winchester, IN, Randolph County, VOR-A, Amdt 10
Wellington, KS, Wellington Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 2
Wellington, KS, Wellington Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 2
Wellington, KS, Wellington Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
Wellington, KS, Wellington Muni, VOR RWY 18, Amdt 3
Galliano, LA, South Lafourche Leonard Miller Jr, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18,
Amdt 2B
Pittsfield, ME, Pittsfield Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1
Pittsfield, ME, Pittsfield Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1
Escanaba, MI, Delta County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Orig-C
Escanaba, MI, Delta County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Escanaba, MI, Delta County, VOR RWY 1, Orig-D
Lapeer, MI, DuPont-Lapeer, VOR-A, Amdt 1
Newberry, MI, Luce County, VOR RWY 29, Amdt 12, CANCELED
Fredericktown, MO, A Paul Vance Fredericktown Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1A
Vicksburg, MS, Vicksburg Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1B
Vicksburg, MS, Vicksburg Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Orig-B
Asheville, NC, Asheville Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 35, Orig
Asheville, NC, Asheville Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 35, Orig, CANCELED
Asheville, NC, Asheville Rgnl, LOC RWY 17, Orig
Asheville, NC, Asheville Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig
Asheville, NC, Asheville Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig, CANCELED
Asheville, NC, Asheville Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig
Asheville, NC, Asheville Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig, CANCELED
Asheville, NC, Asheville Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
Tioga, ND, Tioga Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Kimball, NE, Kimball Muni/Robert E Arraj Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28,
Amdt 1C
Gallup, NM, Gallup Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Orig-A
Buffalo, NY, Buffalo Niagara Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 23, Orig-B
New York, NY, Long Island Mac Arthur, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 5A

Wellsville, NY, Wellsville Muni Arpt, Tarantine Fld, VOR-A, Amdt 6,
CANCELED
Columbus, OH, John Glenn Columbus Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 10L, Amdt
1C
Columbus, OH, John Glenn Columbus Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 10R, Amdt
1C
Delaware, OH, Delaware Muni--Jim Moore Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10,
Amdt 1A
Delaware, OH, Delaware Muni--Jim Moore Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28,
Amdt 1A
London, OH, Madison County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig-A
London, OH, Madison County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig-A
Mount Vernon, OH, Knox County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1C
New Philadelphia, OH, Harry Clever Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 1
New Philadelphia, OH, Harry Clever Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig
New Philadelphia, OH, Harry Clever Field, VOR-A, Amdt 2B
Sidney, OH, Sidney Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1A
Steubenville, OH, Jefferson County Airpark, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt
1A
Willard, OH, Willard, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Fairview, OK, Fairview Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
4
Tahlequah, OK, Tahlequah Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1A
Beaver Falls, PA, Beaver County, LOC RWY 10, Amdt 4C
St Marys, PA, St Marys Muni, LOC RWY 28, Amdt 4D
St Marys, PA, St Marys Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1D
St Marys, PA, St Marys Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
2A
Cleveland, TN, Cleveland Rgnl Jetport, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Amdt 2
Cleveland, TN, Cleveland Rgnl Jetport, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Amdt 2
Cleveland, TN, Cleveland Rgnl Jetport, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 2
Austin, TX, Austin-Bergstrom Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 35R, ILS RWY 35R
SA CAT I, ILS RWY 35R SA CAT II, Amdt 4
Floydada, TX, Floydada Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1
Floydada, TX, Floydada Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1
Renton, WA, Renton Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 8A
Seattle, WA, Seattle-Tacoma Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 4B
Wheeling, WV, Wheeling Ohio Co, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1A
Jackson, WY, Jackson Hole, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 1, Amdt 1
Jackson, WY, Jackson Hole, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 19, Amdt 2
Jackson, WY, Jackson Hole, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 1, Amdt 1

[FR Doc. 2018-15059 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 25, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 206)]
[Notices]
[Page 66052-66053]
[DOCID:fr25oc11-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2390-079]

Northern States Power Company; Notice of Application To Amend
License and Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Amendment to License.
    b. Project No: 2390-079.
    c. Date Filed: September 21, 2011.
    d. Applicant: Northern States Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Big Falls Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Flambeau River, near the
towns of Ladysmith and Tony, in Rusk County, Wisconsin.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: William P. Zawacki, Director of Hydro Plants,
Xcel Energy, 1414 W. Hamilton Ave., P.O. Box 8, Eau Claire, WI 54702-
0008; and Matthew J. Miller, Hydro Licensing Specialist, Xcel Energy,
1414 W. Hamilton Ave., P.O. Box 8, Eau Claire, WI 54702-0008.
    i. FERC Contact: Christopher Chaney;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests, is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. All
documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be filed
electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an
original and seven copies should be mailed to: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters,
without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and
contact information at the end of your comments.
    Please include the project number (P-2390-079) on any comments,
motions, or recommendations filed.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee is seeking to amend the
license for the Big Falls Hydroelectric Project to authorize the
proposed rehabilitation of two of the project's three units. The
project's total authorized installed capacity would increase by 1,572
kW [from 7,780 kW to 9,352 kW] and the maximum hydraulic capacity would
increase by 245 cubic feet per second (cfs) [from 2,482 cfs to 2,727
cfs].
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208- 3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
Bear in all capital letters the title ``Comments,'' ``Protest,'' or
``Motion To Intervene'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the license surrender.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

    Dated: October 19, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-27522 Filed 10-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

General Comment:I would like to request an extension of the comment period for the FDA's Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks many questions I want to respond to. I want to comment upon these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I believe e-cigarettes are a life-saving technology, and I want to cite every possible piece of evidence for their relative safety and effectiveness. I know that the FDA has the authority to extend the time frame for making comments , and that the FDA has done this many times in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Colin J. McDonald


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 168 (Monday, August 31, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52468-52469]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21438]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2522-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: PJM submits filing to
include Rochelle signatory page to Att A of TOA-42 to be effective 8/1/
2015.
    Filed Date: 8/25/15.
    Accession Number: 20150825-5097.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2523-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AR Provider Amendments,
Clean-Up Changes to be effective 10/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/25/15.
    Accession Number: 20150825-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/15/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2524-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Peach Solar Energy 3
(Project 2) SGIA Filing to be effective 8/10/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/25/15.
    Accession Number: 20150825-5141.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/15/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing

requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 25, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-21438 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 138)]
[Notices]
[Page 41147-41149]
[DOCID:fr17jy08-141]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58142; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-70]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(6)(B)(I), the Generic Listing Standard for Equity Index-Linked
Securities

 July 11, 2008.
    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 June 27, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange''),
through its wholly owned subsidiary, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (``NYSE
Arca Equities''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(6)(B)(I), the Exchange's generic listing standard for equity
index-linked securities (``Equity Index-Linked Securities'') to: (1)
Eliminate initial and continued listing capitalization weighted and
modified capitalization weighted index requirements; and (2) to adjust
certain equity index weighting criteria and adopt notional volume
traded per month to both initial listing standards and continued
listing standards. The text of the proposed rule change is available at
the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://
www.nyse.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    NYSE Arca proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(6)(B)(I), the Exchange's generic listing standard for Equity
Index-Linked Securities. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to: (1)
Eliminate initial and continued listing capitalization weighted and
modified capitalization weighted index requirements; and (2) to adjust
certain equity index weighting criteria and adopt notional volume
traded per month to both the initial listing standards and continued
listing standards.
    For Equity Index-Linked Securities, the Exchange proposes to
eliminate NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(1)(b)(iii), the
current initial listing requirement that, in the case of a
capitalization weighted index or modified capitalization weighted
index, the lesser of the five highest dollar weighted component
securities in the index or the highest dollar weighted component
securities in the index that in the aggregate represent at least 30% of
the total number of component securities in the index, must have an
average monthly trading volume of at least 2,000,000 shares over the
previous six months. The Exchange also proposes to eliminate NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(a)(iii),\3\ the current

continued listing requirement, that in the case of a capitalization
weighted index or modified capitalization weighted index, the lesser of
the five highest dollar weighted component securities in the index or
the highest dollar weighted component securities in the index that in
the aggregate represent at least 30% of the total number of stocks in
the index have an average monthly trading volume of at least 1,000,000
shares over the previous six months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ E-mail from Timothy J. Malinowski, Director, NYSE Euornext,
to Michou H.M. Nguyen, Special Counsel, and Steve Varholik,
Attorney-Advisor, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, on
July 10, 2008 (correcting the citations to NYSE Arca Equities Rules
5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(a)(iii) and 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(a)(ii),
respectively.) (``July 10 e-mail'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believe that it is consistent or justified to
impose specific trading volume requirements applicable only to
capitalization weighted or modified capitalization weighted indexes,
since both of these index methodologies do not raise any unique
characteristics that merit the application of the current initial and
continued listing standard. Rather, the Exchange proposes that
capitalization weighted index or modified capitalization weighted
indexes comply with the initial and continued listing requirements
currently applicable to all other equity indexes under NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I) regardless of the index methodology.
    The Exchange notes that the Exchange's exchange-traded fund
(``ETF'') listing standard \4\ does not impose equity index
requirements on capitalization weighted and modified capitalization
weighted indexes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) Commentary .01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently for initial listing, Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(1)(b)(ii)
provides that each component security of an equity index shall have
trading volume in each of the last six months of not less than
1,000,000 shares per month, except that for each of the lowest weighted
component securities in the index that in the aggregate account for no
more than 10% of the weight of the index, the trading volume will be at
least 500,000 shares per month in each of the last six months.
    The Exchange is proposing to: (i) Remove the requirement that each
of the lowest weighted component securities in the index that in the
aggregate account for 10% of the weight of the index have trading
volume of at least 500,000 shares per month for each of the last six
months; and (ii) adopt minimum global notional volume (``Global
Notional Volume'') \5\ traded per month of $25,000,000 averaged over of
the last six months as an option for meeting the listing requirements.
Proposed Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(1)(b)(ii) sets forth:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Global Notional Volume is defined as the total shares traded
globally times the price per share.

    Component stocks that in the aggregate account for at least 90%
of the weight of the index each shall have a minimum global monthly
trading volume of 1,000,000 shares, or minimum Global Notional
Volume traded per month of $25,000,000, averaged over the last six
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
months.

    With respect to the continued listing criteria, Rule
5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(a)(ii) \6\ currently sets forth that the trading
volume of each component security in the index must be at least 500,000
shares for each of the last six months, except that for each of the
lowest weighted components in the index that in the aggregate account
for no more than 10% of the weight of the index, trading volume must be
at least 400,000 shares for each of the last six months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See July 10 e-mail supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to: (i) Remove the requirement that the
lowest weighted component securities in the index that in the aggregate
accounting for no more than 10% of the weight of the index have trading
volume of at least 400,000 shares for each of the last six months; and
(ii) adopt minimum Global Notional Volume traded per month of
$12,500,000 averaged over the last six months as an option for
satisfying the continued listing requirements. Proposed Rule
5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(ii) sets forth:

    Component stocks that in the aggregate account for at least 90%
of the weight of the index each shall have a minimum global monthly
trading volume of 500,000 shares, or minimum Global Notional Volume
traded per month of $12,500,000, averaged over the last six months.

    With respect to both the initial listing and continued listing
standards, the Exchange believes that considering the weighting of the
bottom 10% component securities is insignificant for determining the
liquidity of the index. Rather, the Exchange proposes that focusing on
90% of the top weighted index component securities is a better
indication as to whether the index or indexes has sufficient liquidity
for listing and trading of the related Equity Index-Linked Security.
    With respect to adopting, as an alternative to monthly trading
volume, the minimum Global Notional Volume traded averaged over the
last six months to both the initial and continued listing standards,
the Exchange believes that averaged notional volume traded per month is
a better measure of the liquidity of component stocks of the underlying
index or indexes. Specifically, notional volume nullifies the volume
discrepancies that generally occur between low-priced and high-priced
stocks.\7\ In addition, adopting an average of the trading volume and
notional volume over six months eliminates seasonal volume fluctuations
that may occur in the trading volume of a particular underlying
security represented in the index or indexes.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For example, a stock priced at $10 per share that trades
2,500,000 shares in a month has a notional volume of $25,000,000.
Conversely, a stock priced at $100 per share that trades 250,000
shares in a month has a notional volume of $25,000,000.
    \8\ See July 10 e-mail supra note 3 (clarifying that the
adoption of six month average applies to both trading volume and
Global Notional Volume traded).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, investors, Equity Index-Linked Securities issuers, and
third-party index sponsors would also benefit from NYSE Arca's ability
to list--without the delay associated with a stand-alone rule filing--
Equity Index-Linked Securities based on a broader group of indexes,
promoting competition.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rules applicable to trading
pursuant to generic listing and trading criteria, together with the
Exchange's surveillance procedures applicable to trading in the
securities covered by the proposed rules, serve to foster investor
protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reason for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve such proposed rule change; or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-70 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-NYSEArca-2008-70. 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 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 inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-70 and should
be submitted on or before August 7, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. E8-16350 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


% of total retail value for Mexican seafood
$105,540,000
2.
1% Reduction in value for 2.5% of Mexican seafood
$55,000
48
% Increase in lost value due wait time past minimum submission time frame
$26,000
Total lost value for Mexican seafood
$81,000
20
0
1
Imported Canadian seafood total retail value
$1,863,218,000
85
% of total retail value for Canadian seafood
$1,583,735,000
2.
1% Reduction in value for 2.5% of Canadian seafood
$831,000
48% Increase in lost value due wait time past minimum submission time frame
$399,000
Total lost value for Canadian seafood
$1,230,000
Total lost value for seafood
$1,311,000
2-hour minimum prior notice time for food arriving by land by rail and “wheels-up” or 4 hour
minimum prior notice time by air
The 2-hour minimum submission time for food imported by land by rail should reduce
the probability of having to resubmit prior notice for virtually all articles of food imported from
Canada and Mexico by rail.  However, with current staffing levels at the PNC, the possibility
exists that some articles of food arriving by rail may be held at the minimum prior notice
submission time frame.
Data from the PNC for 2007 show that only about 4 percent of the articles of food
imported from Canada and only about 2 percent of the articles of food imported from Mexico are
imported by land by rail.  Thus, articles of food arriving by land by rail represent only a slight
fraction of all prior notices received and are therefore not necessarily the constraining factor

367
when the PNC is staffed at its current level. Although we cannot rule out the possibility that
some additional effects may be associated with articles of food imported from by land by rail
under Option 2A, we assume those effects would be negligible. We therefore do not estimate
additional costs for articles of food arriving by land by rail for Option 2A.
Reducing the prior notice submission time frame to “wheels-up” for food imported by air
on flights originating in North and Central America, South America (north of the equator only),
the Caribbean, and Bermuda will eliminate the need for any resubmission of prior notice
information for those shipments.  Since prior notice does not need to be submitted until “wheels-
up,” the probability of not having the correct prior notice information on the shipment is
eliminated.
However, according to 2007 data from the PNC, if the minimum prior notice submission
time is reduced from 4 hours to “wheels up” for some articles of food arriving by air,
approximately 5 percent of the prior notice reviews would not be completed in time if flight time
was less than three hours given the current PNC staffing level.  Perishable produce and seafood
imported into the United States from the Bahamas, Belize, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador,
Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica and Nicaragua, can all be flown to Miami, Florida in less than 3 hours.
Perishable produce and seafood imported by air from Canada and Mexico also can be flown into
the United States in less than 3 hours.
Table 11 of this document shows that while there is no value loss from perishable
produce and seafood having to resubmit prior notice (because the minimum prior notice
submission time frame is “wheels-up”), there may be a loss of value for about 5 percent of
perishable produce and seafood coming from the locations listed previously if the PNC does not
have more than its current level of personnel to review and respond to prior notices when the

368
minimum prior notice time frame is “wheels-up.”  Even if the PNC cannot respond to all prior
notices for articles of food arriving in the United States by air when the flight time is less than 3
hours, we would still not expect the costs (value loss on perishable produce and seafood) to
importers of these articles of food to be less than the costs in Option 1 where the minimum prior
notice time frame is 4 hours for articles of food arriving by air.  Again we note that this analysis
is based on the typical review time for prior notice for articles of food arriving by air.  No matter
what the minimum prior notice submission time frame, there will always be some articles of food
for which the PNC will not be able to respond and complete its risk assessment within the time
frame allotted.
To estimate the potential loss in value for perishable products due to a delay in PNC
review, we use the following information in table 11 of this document: (1) The total retail value
of the perishable products from Central America, adjusted to encompass perishable products
coming from countries whose flight times to the United States are less than 3 hours; (2) the total
retail value of perishable products from Canada and Mexico, adjusted to reflect the proportion of
these articles of food that arrive into the United States by air (8 percent for Canada and 3 percent
for Mexico); and (3) the estimated loss for the delay in review, which we equate to 1 hour
17
of
the perishable product’s lifespan.
17
We chose 1 hour as the loss in value because the PNC, staffed at its current level, will not complete its review for
articles of food arriving by air when flights are less than 3 hours and prior notice is required at “wheels-up,” but
generally will complete its review when the minimum prior notice time for articles of food arriving by air is 4 hours.

369
TABLE 11.--LOSS IN VALUE CAUSED BY DELAYED PRIOR NOTICE REVIEW UNDER OPTION 2A FOR SHIPMENTS
ARRIVING BY AIR ("WHEELS-UP MINIMUM NOTICE REQUIREMENT")
Perishable Produce
Dollars
2
001
Imported Mexican produce total retail value
$3,458,525,000
3
% of total retail value for Mexican produce
$103,756,000
5% Experience a 0.6% loss in value due wait time past minimum submission time frame
Total lost value for Mexican produce
$31,000
2
001
Imported Canadian produce total retail value
$401,826,000
8% of total retail value for Canadian produce
$32,146,000
5% Experience a 0.6% in value due wait time past minimum submission time frame
Total lost for Canadian produce
$10,000
2
001
Imported Central American produce total retail value (coming from countries that are less
than 3 hours by air to U.S.)
$62,510,000
5% Experience a 0.6% loss in value due wait time past minimum submission time frame
Total lost value for Central American produce
$19,000
Total lost value for produce
$60,000
Perishable Seafood
Dollars
2
001
Imported Mexican seafood total retail value
$112,277,000
3
% of total retail value for Mexican seafood
$3,368,000
5% Experience a 2.1% loss in value due wait time past minimum submission time frame
Total lost value for Mexican seafood
$4,000
20
0
1
Imported Canadian seafood total retail value
$1,863,218,000
8% of total retail value for Canadian seafood
$149,057,000
5% Experience a 2.1% loss in value due wait time past minimum submission time frame
Total lost value for Canadian seafood
$157,000
2
001
Imported Central American seafood total retail value (coming from countries that are less
than 3 hours by air to U.S.)
$73,021,000
5% Experience a 2.1% loss in value due wait time past minimum submission time frame
Total lost value for Central American seafood
$77,000
Total lost value for seafood
$238,000
Table 12 of this document presents a summary of the costs associated with Option 2A,
including the costs of the option at the OMB-recommended discount rates of 3 and 7 percent.

370
TABLE 12.--SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR OPTION 2A
(In Thousands of Dollars)
Learning costs
$66,240
Coordination costs
$31,095
Computer acquisition costs
$7,600
FDA prior notice system cost
$13,000
Annual costs to fill out prior notice screens
$202,500
Additional costs for BRASS users
$0
Lost value for produce
$857
Lost value for seafood
$1,549
Cost for truck time
$0
Costs of manufacturer registration number and full facility
address requirement
$641,250
Total first year costs for Option 2
$964,091
Annual costs after first year
$857,950
PV of costs at 7% for 20 years
$9,188,327
PV of costs at 3% for 20 years
$12,867,172
Implications for the Benefits of Option 2A
If FDA cannot appropriately review and respond to submitted prior notices within the
reduced submission times frames under Option 2A given current FDA PNC staffing, there are
two possible outcomes:
(1) Prior notice screening and risk assessment requirements will have to be relaxed so
that fewer prior notices are forwarded to the PNC for intensive review.  Taking this action will
reduce the social benefits of the rule by increasing the probability that an article of food posing a
significant health threat to humans or animals will enter the United States unchecked; or
(2) The PNC will be unable to complete its intensive review process for some or all of the
prior notices forwarded to it within the shortened timeframes, and will frequently cause an
unpredictable delay in the movement of these articles of food at the port of arrival until the PNC
completes its review.  This additional time for review will result in higher private costs to
individuals importing articles of food into the United States than implied by the prior notice
times.  However, the costs to affected persons under Option 2A should not be more than the
costs under Option 1.

371
Had the shortened review time frames in Option 2A been in effect in FY 2007, the PNC
would have held at least 6,000 to 16,000 articles of food arriving by land by road.  For air
shipments, if the minimum prior notice submission time frame had been shortened to “wheels-
up”, approximately 728 prior notice reviews in FY 2007 would not have been completed for
flights less than three hours.  As a result, it would have been necessary for the PNC to delay the
movement of these shipments at the port of arrival in order to complete their review and risk
assessment.
To be able to review prior notices within a 1 hour prior notice submission time for
articles of food arriving by land by road (given the current number and dispersion of prior
notices by land by road and by other modes of transportation), the PNC estimates that it would
need more than twice its current level of resources.  The additional resources needed would
include increasing the number of permanent employees who review prior notices from 27 to at
least 50 FTEs, an increase in the number of first line supervisors, a tripling of computer access to
both FDA and CBP systems, and a tripling of the current number of telephone lines.
If the minimum time frame to submit prior notices for articles of food arriving by land by
road was reduced to 30 minutes, the PNC may need 3 times the number of staff to handle the
prior notice review volume within this timeframe.
Cost Benefit Summary Table
We estimate that the revised costs of Option 2A, had we issued it in place of the IFR,
would be about $964 million in the first year and $858 million in later years.  At a 7-percent
discount rate, the present value of the costs of the IFR, discounted 20 years into the future, would
be about $9.2 billion; for a discount rate of 3 percent, the present value costs would be about
$12.9 billion.

372
TABLE 13.--UPDATED COST BENEFIT SUMMARY TABLE FOR OPTION 2A
Annualized Costs Over
20
Years at 7%
Discount Rate
(Millions)
Annualized Costs Over
20
Years at 3%
Discount Rate
(Millions)
Option 2A--1 hour or 30 min. prior notice for food
arriving by land by road, 2 hours for rail, “wheels-up”
or 4 hours for air, 8 hour for vessels; The PNC is
staffed at its current level
$869
$866
Benefits--FDA will know what articles of food are being imported or offered for import, before they arrive
at the port.  In the event of a potential threat of significant health risk to humans or animals, FDA will
be able to mobilize and assist in the detention and removal of those products from U.S. commerce.
The costs and benefits of Option 2A, however, are not the total costs and benefits
summarized in the table. Because the IFR is already in effect, the costs of Option 2A would be
the differences in costs between Options 1 and 2A. The incremental benefits of Option 2A
compared with Option 1 would be the reduced costs associated with short submission times.
Table 14 of this document shows the differences in costs and benefits between Option 1, the IFR,
and Option 2A.
TABLE 14.--DIFFERENCE IN COSTS BETWEEN OPTION 1 AND OPTION 2A
Option 1
Option 2A
Change
Costs
In Thousands of
Dollars
In Thousands of
Dollars
In Thousands of
Dollars
Learning costs
$66,240
$66,240
$0
Coordination costs
$31,095
$31,095
$0
Computer acquisition costs
$7,600
$7,600
$0
FDA prior notice system cost
$13,000
$13,000
$0
Annual costs to fill out prior notice screens
$202,500
$202,500
$0
Additional costs for BRASS users
$48,462
$0
$48,462
Lost value for produce
$4,261
$857
$3,404
Lost value for seafood
$11,533
$1,549
$9,984
Cost for truck time
$0
$0
$0
Costs of manufacturer registration number and
full facility address requirement
$641,250
$641,250
$0
Total first year costs
$1,025,941
$964,091
$61,850
Annual costs
$919,800
$857,950
$61,850
PV of costs at 7% for 20 years
$9,843,567
$9,188,327
$655,240
PV of costs at 3% for 20 years
$13,787,344
$12,867,172
$920,172
Benefits
No difference

373
Option 1, the IFR, costs about $62 million more in the first year and annually than does
Option 2A.
Option 2B-PNC has Increased Staff to Review and Respond to Prior Notices within the
Minimum Time Frame Required
Costs of Option 2B
For Option 2B we assume the PNC staff has been at least doubled, if not tripled.  As
stated earlier in this analysis, the PNC estimates that it would need more than twice, and possibly
three times its current number of permanent employees to review prior notices if the minimum
submission time frame was one hour or 30 minutes before arrival for articles of food arriving by
land by road, “wheels-up” for food arriving by air, and 2 hours for food arriving by land by rail.
In addition to increasing prior notice permanent review staff from 27 to 50 or even 100 or more
FTEs, an increase in the number of first line supervisors would be necessary, as would a
corresponding increase in both computer access and telephone lines to FDA and CBP systems.
Assuming that the costs to hire additional FTEs including overhead is $150,000 per FTE,
then doubling the number of prior notice reviewers by adding an additional 27 permanent
employees to the existing 27 employees would cost at least $4,050,000; tripling the number of
prior notice reviewers would cost at least $8,100,000.  These costs could be higher if additional
overhead is required.   We include $6,075,000 in our summary cost table for Option 2B as this
represents the midpoint in costs between doubling and tripling the number of permanent
employees at the PNC.  These costs could be higher if additional overhead is required.
1-hour or 30 minute minimum prior notice time for food arriving by land by road
Under this option, prior notices for perishable articles of food from Canada and Mexico
that arrive in the United States by land by road must be submitted 1 hour or 30 minutes before

374
the food arrives in the United States. Using the same probability of resubmission structure


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 26, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28273-28275]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11159]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0349]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Explosive Arc at Military Ocean Terminal Concord,
Suisun Bay, Concord, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the
navigable waters of the Suisun Bay, off Concord, CA, in support of
explosive on-loading to Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO). This
safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment from potential explosion within the explosive arc.
Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into,
transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission
of the Captain of the Port San Francisco or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from May 26, 2021
through 11:59 p.m. on June 4, 2021. For the purposes of enforcement,
actual notice will be used from 12:01 a.m. May 24, 2021 until May 26,
2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0349 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Anthony Solarees, Waterways Management, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port San Francisco
DHS Department of Homeland Security
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking with
respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard
received the initial report of larger explosive arc on May 18, 2021. It
is impracticable to go through the full notice and comment rulemaking
process because the Coast Guard must establish this temporary safety
zone by May 24, 2021 and lacks sufficient time to provide a reasonable
comment period and consider those comments before issuing the rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to public interest because immediate action
is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in
the navigable waters around the potentially hazardous explosive on-
loading.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port San
Francisco has determined that potential hazards associated with the
explosive on-loading will exist between May 24, 2021 and June 4, 2021.
There will be a safety concern for anyone within a 4,000-ft radius of
the explosive on-load. For this reason, this temporary safety zone is
needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the
navigable waters surrounding the potentially hazardous on-loading
operations.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone in the navigable
waters around the explosives on-loading occurring at Military Ocean
Terminal Concord (MOTCO), off Concord, CA for a five-day cargo
operation period conducted between May 24, 2021 and June 4, 2021. The
temporary safety zone will encompass the navigable waters of Suisun
Bay, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by connecting all
points 4,000 feet out from the location of the explosive material at
approximate position 38[deg]3.46'' N, 122[deg]0.90'' W or as announced
via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. The projected explosive arc presents
the need for a 4,000 foot radius, which is larger than the safety zone
already established in 33 CFR 165.1198.
    This regulation is necessary to keep persons and vessels away from
the immediate vicinity of the explosive materials during cargo
operations, to ensure the safety of personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the COTP or
the COTP's designated representative, no person or vessel may enter or
remain in the restricted area. A ``designated representative'' means a
Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty
officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel or a Federal,
State, or local officer designated by or assisting the COTP in the
enforcement of the safety zone.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the limited
duration and narrowly tailored geographic area of the safety zone.
Although this rule restricts access to the water encompassed by the
safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because
the local waterway users will be notified to ensure the safety zone
will result in minimum impact. The vessels desiring to transit through
or around the temporary safety zone may do so upon express permission
from the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended,

requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in
section V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
temporary safety zone in the navigable waters around the explosives on-
loading occurring at Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO), off
Concord, CA. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-
01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting
this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on
locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-054 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-054  Safety Zone; Explosive arc at Military Ocean
Terminal Concord, Suisun Bay, Concord, CA

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of Suisun Bay, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by
connecting all points 4,000 feet out from the location of the explosive
material at approximate position 38[deg]3.46'' N, 122[deg]0.90'' W or
as announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a
Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast
Guard vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or
assisting the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) in the
enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative to
obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter
or operate in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative. Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the
safety zone on VHF-23A or through the 24-hour Command Center at
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from May 24,
2021 at

12:01 a.m. until June 4, 2021 at 11:59 p.m. or as announced via marine
information broadcast.
    (e) Information broadcasts. The COTP or the COTP's designated
representative will notify the maritime community of periods during
which this zone will be enforced in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7.

    Dated: May 21, 2021
Jordan M. Baldueza,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain of the Port, San
Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2021-11159 Filed 5-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 7, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38613-38615]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16469]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 129 / Tuesday, July 7, 2015 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0499; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-061-AD;
Amendment 39-18198; AD 2015-13-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Bell
Helicopter Textron Canada (BHTC) Model 430 helicopters to require
inspecting the tail rotor control tube assembly (control tube) and
either repairing or replacing the control tube. This AD was prompted by
two reports of failure of the control tube bonded clevis. The actions
of this AD are intended to prevent failure of a control tube bonded
clevis, which could lead to failure of the control tube and subsequent
loss of helicopter control.

DATES: This AD is effective August 11, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 11,
2015.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell
Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel,
Quebec J7J1R4; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (450)
433-0272; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review the
referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2014-0499.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the Transport Canada Civil
Aviation (TCCA) AD, any incorporated-by-reference service information,
the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office,
M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On July 30, 2014, at 79 FR 44147, the Federal Register published
our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to BHTC Model 430
Helicopters, serial number 49001 through 49121, with control tube part
number (P/N) 430-001-007-101 installed. The NPRM proposed to require
inspecting the control tube and either repairing or replacing it. The
proposed requirements were intended to prevent failure of a control
tube bonded clevis, which could lead to failure of the control tube and
subsequent loss of helicopter control.
    The NPRM was prompted by Canadian AD No. CF-2013-30, dated October
7, 2013, issued by TCCA, which is the aviation authority for Canada, to
correct an unsafe condition for BHTC Model 430 helicopters with control
tube P/N 430-001-007-101. TCCA advises of two failures of the control
tube bonded clevis caused by cracking from control tube oscillation.
TCCA states that this situation, if not corrected, could result in the
loss of control of the helicopter. TCCA AD No. CF-2013-30 consequently
requires a one-time inspection of the control tube for damage and
contacting BHTC for evaluation of the control tube if the damage
exceeds allowable limits. If the tube is not damaged, the damage is
within allowable limits, or BHTC Engineering determines the control
tube can be returned to service, TCCA AD No. CF-2013-30 requires
modifying the tube according to BHTC's service information. TCCA AD No.
CF-2013-30 also requires replacing control tubes, P/N 430-001-007-101,
with control tube, P/N 430-001-007-105, no later than 12 months from
the effective date of its AD.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 44147, July 30,
2014).

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with Canada, TCCA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
the TCCA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all
information provided by TCCA and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same
type designs and that air safety and the public interest require
adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the TCCA AD

    The TCCA AD requires submitting sketches of a control tube damaged
beyond defined limits to BHTC for evaluation. BHTC then determines if
the control tube can be returned to service. We make no such
requirement in this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 430-13-51, dated
September 3, 2013, states that BHTC received two reports of control
tube, P/N 430-001-007-101, failing because the clevis failed due to
fatigue caused by control tube oscillation. ASB No. 430-13-51 specifies
a one-time inspection of control tube assembly, P/N 430-001-007-101, to
verify if the tube has chaffing damage and indicated that a

mandatory replacement would follow when sufficient parts became
available. This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this
AD.

Other Related Service Information

    We reviewed Bell Helicopter Technical Bulletin 430-04-35, Revision
B, dated March 20, 2009, which recommends that control tube, P/N 430-
001-007-101, be replaced with control tube, P/N 430-001-007-105, if
damage exists. On June 12, 2014, Bell issued Revision A to ASB No. 430-
13-51, which set a compliance date of September 30, 2014, to remove
control tube, P/N 430-001-007-101.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 5 helicopters of U.S. Registry and
that labor costs average $85 a work hour. Based on these estimates, we
expect the following costs:
     The cost of inspecting the control tube is minimal.
     Repairing the control tube requires 2 work-hours for a
labor cost of $170.
     Replacing control tube, P/N 430-001-007-101, with control
tube, P/N 430-001-007-105, requires 3 work-hours for a labor cost of
$255. Parts cost $3,974 for a total cost per helicopter of $4,229.
    According to manufacturer's service information, some of the costs
of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage by
the manufacturer. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2015-13-11 Bell Helicopter Textron Canada: Amendment 39-18198;
Docket No. FAA-2014-0499; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-061-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (BHTC) Model
430 Helicopters, serial number 49001 through 49121, with control
tube assembly (control tube), part number (P/N) 430-001-007-101
installed, certificated in any category.

 (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as fatigue failure of a
tail rotor control tube bonded clevis. This condition could result
in failure of the tail rotor control tube and subsequent loss of
helicopter control.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective August 11, 2015.

(d) Compliance

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

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS), visually inspect each
control tube for any damage, for any damage to the clevis, and to
determine whether the clevis is correctly bonded to the control
tube.
    (i) If a control tube and clevis have no damage or damage within
acceptable limits and the clevis is correctly bonded to the control
tube, repair the control tube by applying tape in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions, Paragraph 5, of Bell Helicopter
Alert Service Bulletin 430-13-51, dated September 3, 2013.
    (ii) If the control tube or clevis is damaged beyond acceptable
limits or if the clevis is not correctly bonded to the control tube,
replace control tube, P/N 430-001-007-101, with control tube, P/N
430-001-007-105.
    (2) Within 250 hours TIS, replace each control tube, P/N 430-
001-007-101, with control tube, P/N 430-001-007-105.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation
Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate,
FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817)
222-5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    (1) Bell Helicopter Technical Bulletin 430-04-35, Revision B,
dated March 20, 2009, which is not incorporated by reference,
contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For
service information, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited,
12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437-
2862 or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may view this service information
at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada
Civil Aviation (TCCA) AD No. CF-2013-30, dated October 7, 2013. You
may view the TCCA AD on the Internet at

http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2014-0499.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6720, Tail Rotor
Control

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 430-13-51, dated
September 3, 2013.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited service
information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron
Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 24, 2015.
Bruce E. Cain,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-16469 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48148-48149]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22368]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2000-7257, Notice No. 86]

Railroad Safety Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) System
Safety Task Force and Passenger Safety Working Group meeting.

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

SUMMARY: FRA announces a meeting of the RSAC, a Federal Advisory
Committee that develops recommendations on railroad safety regulations
and other railroad safety issues through a consensus process. The RSAC
System Safety Task Force and Passenger Safety Working Group will meet
October 30, 2017, to discuss petitions for reconsideration, and
comments received in response to the petitions for reconsideration on
the System Safety Program (SSP) final rule issued August 12, 2016,
requiring commuter and intercity passenger railroads to develop and
implement an SSP to improve the safety of their operations.

DATES: The RSAC meeting is scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. on
Monday, October 30, 2017, and will adjourn by 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The RSAC meeting will be held at the National Association of
Home Builders, National Housing Center, located at 1201 15th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20005. The meeting is open to the public on a
first-come, first-served basis, and is accessible to individuals with
disabilities. Sign- and oral interpretation can be made available if
requested 10 calendar days before the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenton Kilgore, RSAC Administrative
Officer/Coordinator, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mailstop 25,
Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Robert C. Lauby, Associate
Administrator for Railroad Safety and Chief Safety Officer, FRA, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Mailstop 25, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 493-
6474.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), FRA is giving notice of a
meeting of the RSAC. FRA is publishing this notice in the Federal
Register as soon as practicable, which will not be at least 15 days
prior to the RSAC meeting. FRA has determined that exceptional
circumstances justify holding the RSAC meeting on October 30, 2017, as
explained below. See 41 CFR 102-3.150. FRA believes that the public
will have adequate notice of the meeting because this notice will be
posted on FRA's public Web site and will be filed for public inspection
by the Office of the Federal Register at least 15 days before the RSAC
meeting.
    FRA published the SSP final rule on August 12, 2016. 81 FR 53850.
On February 10, 2017, FRA stayed the SSP final rule's requirements
consistent with the new Administration's guidance issued January 20,
2017, to provide the Administration an adequate opportunity to review
new and pending regulations (82 FR 10443). FRA thereafter extended the
stay to provide additional time for review. See 82 FR 14476, March 21,
2017; 82 FR 23150, May 22, 2017. The review includes petitions for
reconsideration of the SSP final rule. FRA most recently stayed the
final rule until December 4, 2017, to allow time for public outreach
with interested parties to inform FRA's decisions on the issues raised
in the petitions, and to complete review of the rule and the petitions
(82 FR 26359). The October 30, 2017, RSAC meeting is necessary for FRA
to receive input from industry and the public, and to discuss potential
paths forward to respond to the petitions for reconsideration prior to
FRA taking final action. FRA has previously made stakeholders aware
that the RSAC meeting will be held on October 30, 2017 and interested
persons have made plans accordingly. FRA believes that delaying the
meeting any further would endanger its ability to receive vital public
comment informing actions on the petitions under review and, therefore
believes that providing less than 15 days notice for this meeting best
serves the public interest and, with the mitigations applied here, is
consistent with the exception for exceptional circumstances discussed
above.
    The RSAC was established to provide advice and recommendations to
FRA on railroad safety matters. The RSAC is composed of 59 voting
representatives from 38 member organizations, representing various rail
industry perspectives. In addition, there are non-voting advisory
representatives from the agencies with railroad safety regulatory
responsibility in Canada and Mexico, the National Transportation Safety
Board, and the Federal Transit Administration. The diversity of the
Committee ensures the requisite range of views and expertise necessary
to discharge its responsibilities. See the RSAC Web site for details on
prior RSAC activities and pending tasks at http://rsac.fra.dot.gov/.
Please refer to the notice published in the Federal Register on March
11, 1996 (61 FR 9740), for additional information about the RSAC.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 11, 2017.
Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-22368 Filed 10-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P