[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 29, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59471-59473]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18519]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1719; Project Identifier 2008-NM-202-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to remove Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010-
26-05, which applies to certain Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 10
airplanes; Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and
G airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5
airplanes; and all Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes; Model FALCON
2000 and FALCON 2000EX airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 and MYSTERE-
FALCON 900 airplanes; and Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. AD 2010-26-05
requires repetitive inspections for overpressure tightness on the
pressurization control regulating valves and, if necessary, replacing
the affected valve with a serviceable unit. AD 2010-26-05 is no longer
necessary because the FAA has since issued ADs 2021-04-20, 2020-02-13,
2020-03-24, 2020-03-19, 2020-01-13, 2023-05-15, 2023-04-10, 2023-02-13,
2023-04-18, and 2023-04-13 to address the unsafe condition.
Accordingly, the FAA proposes to remove AD 2010-26-05.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 13,
2023.

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 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1719; 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, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1719; Project Identifier
2008-NM-202-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those 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, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this proposed AD.

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 Tom
Rodriguez, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2010-26-05, Amendment 39-16544 (75 FR 79952,
December 21, 2010) (AD 2010-26-05), for certain Dassault Aviation Model
Falcon 10 airplanes; Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D,
E, F, and G airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and
20-F5 airplanes; and all Model FALCON 2000 and FALCON 2000EX

airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50
and MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes, and Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. AD
2010-26-05 was prompted by an MCAI originated by the European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the
Member States of the European Union. EASA issued AD 2008-0072, dated
April 18, 2008 (EASA AD 2008-0072) (also referred to as the MCAI), to
identify and correct an unsafe condition.
    AD 2010-26-05 requires repetitive inspections for overpressure
tightness on the pressurization control regulating valves and, if
necessary, replacing the affected valve with a serviceable unit. The
FAA issued AD 2010-26-05 to address failure of the pressurization
control regulating valve (overpressure capsule), which will affect the
aircraft's overpressure protection. Overpressurization can result in
injury to the occupants and possible structural failure leading to loss
of control of the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2010-26-05 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2010-26-05, the actions specified in the
MCAI have been included in the airworthiness limitations section of the
existing maintenance manual. EASA issued EASA AD 2008-0072-CN, dated
October 5, 2020, which cancels EASA AD 2008-0072. The FAA issued the
following ADs to address the unsafe condition by revising the existing
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or
more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness
limitations, including the actions specified in AD 2010-26-05:
     AD 2021-04-20, Amendment 39-21442 (86 FR 12802, March 5,
2021), which addresses the unsafe condition for Model Falcon 10
airplanes.
     AD 2020-02-13, Amendment 39-19827 (85 FR 6744, February 6,
2020), which addresses the unsafe condition for Model FAN JET FALCON,
FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes on which the
supplemental structural inspection program (SSIP) has been incorporated
into the airplane's maintenance program.
     AD 2020-03-24, Amendment 39-19848 (85 FR 11289, February
27, 2020), which addresses the unsafe condition for Model MYSTERE-
FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes on which the SSIP
(Dassault Service Bulletin 730) has been embodied into the airplane's
existing maintenance or inspection program.
    AD 2020-03-19, Amendment 39-19843 (85 FR 11280, February
27, 2020), which address the unsafe condition for Model MYSTERE-FALCON
20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes, except those on which the
SSIP (Dassault Service Bulletin 730) has been embodied into the
airplane's existing maintenance or inspection program.
     AD 2020-01-13, Amendment 39-19819 (85 FR 5313, January 30,
2020), which addresses the unsafe condition for Model MYSTERE-FALCON
200 airplanes.
     AD 2023-05-15, Amendment 39-22384 (88 FR 22374, April 13,
2023), which addresses the unsafe condition for Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50
airplanes.
     AD 2023-04-10, Amendment 39-22357 (88 FR 20743, April 7,
2023), which addresses the unsafe condition for Model MYSTERE-FALCON
900 airplanes.
     AD 2023-02-13, Amendment 39-22320 (88 FR 8740, February
10, 2023), which addresses the unsafe condition for Model FALCON 900EX
airplanes.
     AD 2023-04-18, Amendment 39-22365 (88 FR 15607, March 14,
2023), which addresses the unsafe condition for Model FALCON 2000
airplanes.
     AD 2023-04-13, Amendment 39-22360 (88 FR 20741, April 7,
2023), which addresses the unsafe condition for Model FALCON 2000EX
airplanes.

FAA's Conclusions

    Upon further consideration, the FAA has determined that AD 2010-26-
05 is no longer necessary. Accordingly, this proposed AD would remove
AD 2010-26-05. Removal of AD 2010-26-05 would not preclude the FAA from
issuing another related action or commit the FAA to any course of
action in the future. This proposed AD would remove all actions of AD
2010-26-05. Therefore, this proposed AD would terminate all
requirements of AD 2010-26-05.

Related Costs of Compliance

    This proposed AD would add no cost. This proposed AD would remove
AD 2010-26-05 from 14 CFR part 39; therefore, operators would no longer
be required to show compliance with that AD.

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.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA has 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 that the proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010-26-05, Amendment 39-16544
(75 FR 79952, December 21, 2010), and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2023-1719; Project Identifier
2008-NM-202-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by October 13, 2023.

(b) Affected AD

    This AD replaces AD 2010-26-05, Amendment 39-16544 (75 FR 79952,
December 21, 2010) (AD 2010-26-05).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1)
and (2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
    (1) Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 10 airplanes; Model FAN JET
FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; and Model
MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes; all serial
numbers, equipped with Liebherr or ABG-Semca pressurization outflow
valves.
    (2) Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes, Model
MYSTERE-FALCON 50 and MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes, and FALCON 900EX
airplanes; and Model FALCON 2000 and FALCON 2000EX airplanes; all
serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 21, Air
conditioning.

(e) Terminating Action

    This AD terminates all requirements of AD 2010-26-05.

(f) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

(g) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on August 22, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-18519 Filed 8-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 86)]
[Notices]
[Page 25298-25299]
[DOCID:fr04my07-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Project No. 12478-001]

Dam Hydroelectric Company, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

April 27, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12478-001.
    c. Date filed: April 3, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Gibson Dam Hydroelectric Company, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Gibson Dam Project.
    f. Location: North Fork Sun Fork in Teton and Lewis and Clark
Counties, Montana. It would use the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Gibson
Dam.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 USC. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Steven C. Marmon, Project Manager, Gibson
Dam Hydroelectric Company, LLC, 3633 Alderwood Avenue, Bellingham, WA
98225,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project
number (P-12748-001) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor 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.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project using the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation's Gibson Dam and operated in a run-of-river mode,
would consist of: (1) Two proposed 300-foot-long, steel penstocks, (2)
a powerhouse containing two generating units having a total installed
capacity of 15 megawatts, (3) A proposed 34.5 kilovolt underground
transmission line, and (4) appurtenant facilities. The Gibson Dam
Hydroelectric Company, LLC project would have an average annual
generation of 50 gigawatt-hours.
    l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
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, call toll-free 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. Competing Preliminary Permit--Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR
4.30(b) and 4.36.
    n. Competing Development Application--Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
    o. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit

application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    p. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit--A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    q. 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.
    r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', and ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the
Project Number of the particular application to which the filing
refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the
original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's
regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be
sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A
copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    s. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8520 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1 TRI Burden Reduction Stakeholder Briefing October 19, 2004 Meeting Summary EPA Presenters: Mike Flynn Mike Petruska Kevin Donovan Shelley Fudge Paul Borst EPA Attendees: Elsa Bishop Karen Brown John Cooper Evie Cummings Steve DeVito John Dombrowski Marc Edmonds Erin Koch Kathleen Meir Kevin Minoli Michelle Price Angela Suber Cassandra Vail Stakeholder Attendees: Todd Abel, CCC David Ailor, ACCCI/ NOPA William Allmond, National Association of Chemical Distributors John Arnett, Copper and Brass Fabricators Council Andrew Bopp, Society of Glass and Ceramic Decorators Kevin Bromberg, U. S. Small Business Administration Dr. Norbert Dee, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association Rick Deery, Resources Committee, House Lisa Edouard, AF& PA Julia Festa, AF& PA Mary Catherine Fish, MCF Consulting, Inc. Elizabeth Gaudio, National Federation of Independent Business Jennifer, Giboon, National Association of Chemical Distributors Jeff Gunnulfsen, SOCMA Edward Herbert, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association Steve Higley, Senate EPW Maj. Office Joseph Johnson, SBA Advocacy John King, American Petroleum Institute 2 Sean Moulton, OMB Watch Andy Opperman, New Jersep DEP Paul Orum, Working Group on Community Right to Know Jane Powers, U. S. Department of Energy Danielle Quist, House Government Reform   Sub Reg Affairs Tiernan Sittenfeld, U. S. Public Interest Research Group Ann Smith Reiser, Analytical Services Corporation Dean Scott, Bureau of National Affairs George Sorvalis, Working Group on Community Right to Know Bruce Steiner, American Iron and Steel Institutes Derek Swick, American Petroleum Institute Danielle Waterfield, Specialty Graphic Imaging Association Lee Zeugin, Hunter and Williams; Edison Electric Institutes Meeting Format and Process:

Introductory remarks were presented by: Mike Flynn, Director, Office of Information Analysis and Access, and Mike Petruska, Director, TRI Program Division. Formal presentations by EPA updating various aspects of TRI burden reduction were as follows ( note: full versions of the meeting presentations can be found in the docket, and are important to understanding the questions and comments relative to these presentations as outlined in this meeting summary report):

1) Review of Overall Burden Reduction Strategy Presenter: Kevin Donovan, U. S. EPA, TRI Program Division Overview: An overview and status update on EPA's efforts towards TRI burden reduction was presented, including projected timeframes. ( filename: 1 overallburdredstrategy. pdf)

2) TRI Reporting Forms Modification Rule Presenter: Shelley Fudge, U. S. EPA, TRI Program Division Overview: An outline of a new proposal for TRI reporting forms modification was presented. This proposal supplements the burden reduction options as previously presented in the TRI burden reduction stakeholder dialogue white paper. This proposal includes removal or modifications to reporting for Part I, Sections 4.6, 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10, of the Form R and the Form A Certification Statement, and Part II, Sections 5.3.1. C, 7A. 1b, 7A. 1c, 7A. 1d, 7A. 1e, 7B, 7C, and 8.11 of the Form R. ( filename: 2 formsmodification. pdf)

3) TRI Program Related Burden Reduction Options and Public Comment Summary Presenter: Kevin Donovan, U. S. EPA, TRI Program Division Overview: The burden reduction options as previously presented in the TRI burden reduction stakeholder dialogue white paper were outlined. A summary of comments received to date on each of the options was presented. ( filename: 3 burdredoptions. pdf) 3 4) Approach to Options Analysis Presenter: Paul Borst, U. S. EPA, Analytical Support Branch, Environmental Analysis Division Overview: An overview of completed and proposed TRI data analyses conducted in support of burden reduction options assessment was presented. ( filename: 4 optionsanalysis. pdf)

Following each presentation was a discussion period for audience questions and comments and EPA response to questions and comments. An additional discussion period for audience questions and comments on any of the presentations or aspects of burden reduction was given at the end of the day. A summary of all comments was presented back to the meeting attendees at the end of each discussion to ensure that audience comments had been accurately understood and recorded. The following sections of this meeting summary present the content of these discussion sessions, organized around the proposed TRI burden reduction options.

Audience members indicated that they had no additional questions or comments, and the meeting was closed. EPA indicated that further comments and suggestions on TRI burden reduction are welcomed in the future.

General Comments:

  In response to comments about potential new ideas for burden reduction, EPA responded that there are many EPA initiatives currently underway that are in line with the ideas received under the stakeholder dialogue, in particular regarding data collection and access, but are not formally being called burden reduction. These include: o Development of a new Form R for dioxins that will use TEQs ( toxicity equivalencies). o An increasingly web based approach to TRI reporting. o Enhancements to the TRI ME software. o An overhaul of TRI explorer and Envirofacts. o Expanded presentation of context around TRI data.

  There were several comments on the use of range codes in general on multiple data elements on the Form R. These included: o Use of range codes leads to misleading data as reported in the public data release because the midpoint of the range is reported out. This furthers the misperception because use of range codes does not require precise estimates, but an actual quantity is reported and, also, the midpoint quantity is reported when an actual release or transfer of a quantity at the top or the bottom range may have occurred. o Use of this less accurate midpoint data is frustrating to data users. Use of range codes should be eliminated. 4 o More precise release data ( versus less precise range reporting) is important to those in the impact area of releasing facilities. This is particularly important to locals surrounded by multiple TRI reporting facilities. o The imprecision of the data from range code use becomes cumulatively worse in the area of impact of multiple facilities and also over multiple years in making risk estimates. o EPA reauthorized use of range codes in the 1990s.

  There were comments questioning the validity of apparent assumptions that have come out of the TRI burden reduction stakeholder process. The following is an assessment by the commenter of these perceived assumptions: o A small business does not necessarily indicate a small release. o A small release quantity does not necessarily indicate an unimportant release or low risk or harm because:

Small releases of highly toxic chemicals can present high risk or harm.

The potential risk is important to the local population impacted by the release. National release totals are not meaningful, the local risk is meaningful. o Zero releasers may have large waste streams. o Waste management activities such as recycling can have significant impacts, impacts are not just from releases. For example, recycling can cause serious risk or harm through worker exposure and many seriouslycontaminated sites were created through recycling activities. o A number of proposed details of the burden reduction options give credit for or suggest eliminating reporting on recycling and energy recovery. Do not give incentives for recycling, instead, place more emphasis on encouraging source reduction. Source reduction can lead to significant financial savings versus recycling. The Pollution Prevention Act is about source reduction, and this is not getting enough consideration. o Use of range codes should be reduced or eliminated, not expanded.

  One commenter reported that his review of all of the comments to the TRI burden reduction options received through the stakeholder dialogue showed that 80% of comments were against moving forward with any TRI burden reduction that resulted in less information.

  One commenter questioned the current baseline estimate for TRI reporting burden, stating, for example, that credit is not given for the TRI ME software which does reduce burden through pre populating information from the previous years' forms, etc. EPA responded that the 2006 ICR will be accepting comments on this baseline.

  There was a suggestion that TRI training courses be given earlier in the year to allow facilities more time to prepare TRI reports. EPA responded that they need 5 to wait to initiate courses until they have received OMB approval for the new reporting year's forms and instructions.

  There was a suggestion that a check box be added to the TRI ME software indicating that " We don't use underground injection wells and never have" in order to avoid having to pass through queries on this data element. EPA indicated that the incidence rate for reporting in this data element is less than one percent.

  There was a comment specific to the cement and limestone industry that very few limestone suppliers provide constituent information. While industry is not required to conduct laboratory analysis for TRI reporting, the lack of information from suppliers and this sector's belief that the AP 42 emission factors relative to their industry need updating has left them in a difficult situation. EPA has agreed to work further with this commenter outside of the context of the burden reduction stakeholder process.

Forms Modification:

General Comments/ Questions:   A question was posed as to how data such as RCRA i. d. would be obtained if there was nothing in FRS. EPA responded that there are multiple methods, such as an address matching procedure, to link to this data.   A question was posed as to how a facility could report or correct errors if certain data elements are pulled from FRS instead of self reported by the facility. EPA responded that they are developing a procedure to report such errors.   Regarding a proposal for changing 7A. 1d ( on site waste treatment efficiency) from a percentage to a range code, a question was posed as to how does this reduce burden? EPA and others responded that this lessens the required data collection and calculations, as a less precise estimation is needed, thus use of range codes does lessen burden.   Regarding proposed changes to 7A. 1d ( on site waste treatment efficiency) and 7B ( energy recovery method used), a question was posed asking why wouldn't facilities need to know this information. EPA responded that these modifications were proposed in an effort to make things easier for reporting facilities.   EPA indicated that one of the justifications for proposed removal or modification of certain data elements was lack of use. A few questions were posed asking if potential data users ( both inside and outside of EPA) had been considered when removal or modification of certain Form R elements was proposed, for example those within EPA who look at effluent guidelines. EPA responded that while a formal workgroup was not required for this streamlined rule, EPA is working closely with a regional workgroup on the proposed forms modification rule and is carefully considering data users. EPA also indicated that how TRI data are used has been closely examined, with these results included in a TRI data use paper that is available on the EPA website.   Relative to potential removal of the 8.11 checkbox, a few questions were posed as to why or how this optional pollution prevention information may be useful? 6 EPA responded that providing a way for facilities to report optional pollution prevention narratives is a statutory requirement of the Pollution Prevention Act. Others responded that valuable and innovative pollution prevention ideas would be highly useful to peer facilities.

Comments in Favor:   A comment was made applauding EPA's effort to take a hard look at the Form R and modify or eliminate certain data elements.

Comments Opposed: There were no comments in strong opposition to the proposed forms modification.

Option 1 ( Higher Reporting Thresholds for Small Businesses):

General Comments: There were no comments on this option other than those in favor and in opposition as outlined below.

Comments in Favor:   One industry trade group representative indicated their strong favor for this option, in particular higher reporting threshold for small businesses.

Comments Opposed:   One environmental group representative indicated their strong opposition to this option, stating that a small business does not mean a small or insignificant release.

Option 2 ( Higher Reporting Thresholds for a Category of Facilities or a Class of Chemicals with Small Reportable Amounts):

General Comments:

  Aside from the comment on petroleum bulk stations below, it was indicated by one commenter that research on the TRI data did not identify any good candidate sectors for this option.   There was discussion on different reporting requirements, such as threshold, for different TRI chemicals. Comments included: o EPA reported that there has been an on going review of TRI chemicals in light of the criteria set forth for TRI chemicals. All chemicals evaluated to date meet the criteria. EPA further indicated that resources go towards evaluating and responding to petitions to de list chemicals from TRI. o There was a comment that copper is only toxic in the ionic form, but that current reporting combines quantities of the elemental metal together with copper present as a copper compound. It was noted that a previous petition to de list copper was denied by EPA. 7 o There was a suggestion that toxicity equivalencies ( TEQs) be used for metals. o There was a comment that there is no differentiation between chemicals with varying levels of toxicity in TRI reporting requirements. A response to this comment indicated that it is extremely difficult to assign comparative toxicity levels because of the need to rank or compare different toxic effects such as cancer versus birth defects.

Comments in Favor:   One commenter indicated that petroleum bulk stations contribute to less than onetenth of one percent of total TRI releases, and this means this sector shoulders a disproportionate share of reporting burden.

Comments Opposed: There were no comments in strong opposition to this option.

Option 3 ( Expanding Eligibility for the Form A Certification Statement):

General Comments:   It was reported out by EPA and others present that the Form A Certification is widely underused, even when the Form A Certification eligibility has been met. A comment in response indicated that liability concerns prevent some facilities from using the Form A due to fear that they will make an error in determining eligibility, and will be at risk for an enforcement action for non reporting ( i. e., submitting a Form A when a Form R was required). One commenter suggested that there be equal enforcement for an error in determining Form A eligibility and a calculation error on a Form R.

Comments in Favor: There were no comments in strong support of this option.

Comments Opposed: There were no comments in strong opposition to this option.

Option 4 ( Creating a New, " No Significant Change" Certification Statement):

General Comments:   EPA indicated that data analysis for this option has focused on identifying the most appropriate proxy or metric for use in determining " No Significant Change" ( NSC) that would not require full calculation of release and other waste 8 management quantities. Questions were posed regarding what correlational analyses have been conducted by EPA. EPA responded that: o Production ratio has been correlated with total releases and also production related waste. o All on site versus off site releases have been examined, as well as looking at combined on and off site releases by specific media. o Production related waste has been correlated with recycling plus energy recovery versus treatment plus disposal.   EPA indicated that the data loss from the No Significant Change ( NSC) option will be mitigated if the parameter selected for NSC determination serves as a good proxy for related data fields. o Several proxy ideas were put forth:

Use section 8.1, total releases. One commenter suggested that this parameter should only be used if the facility can state that there were no changes to waste management techniques used.

Use the sum of sections 8.1   8.7 ( total production related waste). It was suggested by one commenter that this could be effectively used for correlational analysis, but should not be used for NSC determination.

Use the production ratio.

Use a re defined production ratio ( that more closely corresponds with waste generation versus simply production level).

Give a choice of the above parameters for use as the proxy.

Use a combination of multiple parameters as the proxy.

Use a qualitative determination, such as " there was no change in the process at the facility."   The following parameters were suggested by one commenter if this option is used: o Begin with allowing a baseline to three year period for allowed use of this option, then increase this to five years. o Use five percent as the standard for " No Significant Change." o Use a production ratio type metric, but ensure that it is strongly correlated with generation of wastes. o Do not allow this option for PBT chemicals.   Another commenter suggested using a five percent change to total releases ( 8.1) in combination with a higher percentage allowance for changes in where the material is going ( i. e., to which media). Relative to this comment, it was asked which matters more, on site versus off site or to which media the waste is released. EPA indicated that media was more important than on site versus offsite   EPA indicated that the current definition for production ratio is more closely correlated with production of product versus generation of wastes. It was suggested that it may be useful to modify the definition of production ratio such that it does more closely correspond with waste generation, and then use this as the metric for the " No Significant Change" ( NSC) option. 9   One commenter suggested a " Form NSC De Minimis" for facilities with less than five pounds of total on site releases in combination with less than a 20 percent change in total releases.

Comments in Favor:   Two industry trade group representatives indicated their strong favor for this option.   A suggestion was put forth that using the NSC option in combination with an enhanced Form A would provide effective burden reduction for the greatest number of facilities. This commenter indicated that the enhanced Form A should include extended eligibility, plus providing some release and other waste management quantities through use of range codes.

Comments Opposed:   A cautionary comment was put forth that there should be a determination as to the accuracy of the baseline information before an NSC option is implemented. It was suggested that monitoring may be needed to replace or confirm use of existing published emission factors, as there was a study indicating that air releases may be underreported with use of emission factors.

Option 5 ( Use of Range Reporting for Section 8 of the Form R):

There were no comments put forth specific to this option. There was a great deal of discussion on use of range codes in general as outlined beginning on page three of this document in the " General Comments" section.

New Proposals for Burden Reduction:

  A suggestion was put forth to have the TRI ME software automatically make the calculations for quantities reported in sub sections of Sections 5 and 6 of the Form R that are totaled up for certain sub sections of Section 8 of the Form R.   A suggestion was put forth to eliminate Form R data element Part I, Section 4.7, Dun and Bradstreet number. A related suggestion was to replace use of the parent company Dun and Bradstreet number in Part I, Section 5.1, with the tax identification number, which was considered easier to locate.   An alternate reporting year option was mentioned. EPA responded that they have heard from facilities that biennial data collection is actually more complex than annual tracking, and that the no significant change option was considered a better but comparable replacement for the alternate reporting year option.   A suggestion was put forth to reinstate the de minimis exemption for lead ( note that the de minimis exemption currently applies to lead contained in stainless steel, brass, or bronze alloys) and also for all PBTs.   A suggestion was put forth to make lead a non PBT. This commenter indicated that several of his facilities began reporting when lead was designated as a PBT, and these facilities are typically zero release reporters. 10   A suggestion was put forth to eliminate duplicate reporting of releases and other waste management quantities by facilities generating wastes and also by the receiving facilities that dispose of or otherwise manage these wastes.   A suggestion was put forth to mandate use of the TRI ME software. The commenter indicated that this would decrease burden and increase data quality. It was discussed that a waiver provision would be needed for facilities that may not have computers. Furthering this suggestion was the comment that one or more of the burden reduction options could be implemented coupled with a requirement for electronic submission. Another commenter indicated that electronic submission is slow and difficult with a dial up modem. EPA noted that the regions will be making a significant effort this year to reach out to facilities that use TRI ME, but still report via paper or diskette, and encourage electronic reporting via CDX.   A suggestion was put forth to eliminate zero release reports.   A suggestion was put forth to enhance the quality and distribution of EPA TRI guidance documents.   A suggestion was put forth to eliminate the requirement to consider non isolated intermediates towards the manufacturing threshold.   A suggestion was put forth to use toxicity equivalencies ( TEQs) for dioxin reporting. As noted above under General Comments, this is currently in process at EPA.   A suggestion was put forth to present TRI data in greater context. As noted above under General Comments, this is currently in process at EPA.


[Federal Register: April 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 74)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17899-17900]
[DOCID:fr20ap09-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0338; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASW-9]

Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Conroe, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This action clarifies the Class D and Class E airspace
descriptions for Lone Star Executive Airport, Conroe, TX, published in
the Federal Register December 17, 2008 (73 FR 76517). Ambiguities in
the legal description has caused inaccurate charting of the Class D and
Class E surface areas at Lone Star Executive Airport. This action
amends the legal descriptions to coincide with the FAA's National
Aeronautical Charting Office.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, May 7, 2009. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Ft Worth, TX 76193-0530; telephone (817)
321-7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On, December 17, 2008, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
final rule to establish Class D and Class E airspace at Lone Star
Executive Airport, Conroe, TX (73 FR 76517, Docket No. FAA-2008-0960).
Subsequent to publication, the FAA found ambiguities in the Class D and
Class E airspace area depictions on the VFR Sectional Chart and VFR
Terminal Area Chart for Lone Star Executive Airport. This technical
amendment will clarify the above airspace area.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph
5000, and 6002, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9S signed October 3,
2008, and effective October 31, 2008, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

Final Rule Technical Amendment

    This technical amendment clarifies the legal description of the
Class D & E airspace areas to avoid confusion on the part of pilots
flying in the vicinity of Lone Star Executive Airport, Conroe, TX. The
legal description will be restated in its entirety to avoid further
confusion.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Lone Star Executive Airport,
Conroe, TX.
    In consideration of the need to clarify the legal description and
avoid confusion on the part of pilots flying in the vicinity of Lone
Star Executive Airport, the FAA finds good cause, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(d), for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days in
order to promote the safe and efficient handling of air traffic in the
area. ``Accordingly, since this merely involves a change in the legal
description of the Conroe, TX, airspace area, and does not involve a
change in the dimension or operating requirements, notice and public
procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.''

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E. O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9S, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed October 3, 2008, and effective October 31,
2008, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

ASW TX D Conroe, TX [Amended]

Lone Star Executive Airport, TX
    (Lat. 30[deg]21'09'' N., long. 95[deg]24'52'' W.)
Navasota VORTAC
    (Lat. 30[deg]17'19''N., long. 096[deg]03'30'' W.)
HUMBLE VORTAC
    (Lat. 29[deg]57'25'' N., long. 095[deg]20'45'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,700 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of Lone Star Executive
Airport, excluding that airspace within the 4.1 mile radius
northeast of the intersection of the IAH VORTAC 356[deg] radial and
the TNV VORTAC 081[deg] radial. This Class D airspace area is
effective during the specific dates and times established in advance
by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter
be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

ASW TX E2 Conroe, TX [Amended]

Lone Star Executive Airport, TX
    (Lat. 30[deg]21'09'' N., long. 95[deg]24'52'' W.)
Navasota VORTAC
    (Lat. 30[deg]17'19'' N., long. 096[deg]03'30'' W.)
HUMBLE VORTAC
    (Lat. 29[deg]57'25'' N., long. 095[deg]20'45'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,700 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of Lone Star Executive
Airport, excluding that airspace within the 4.1 mile radius
northeast of the intersection of the IAH VORTAC 356[deg] radial and
the TNV VORTAC 081[deg] radial. This Class E airspace area is
effective during the specific dates and times established in advance
by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter
be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on April 9, 2009.
Anthony D. Roetzel,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. E9-8845 Filed 4-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 39303-39305]
[DOCID:fr08jy10-133]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62404; File No. SR-BATS-2010-017]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
BATS Rule 11.13, Entitled ``Order Execution''

June 30, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 28, 2010, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend BATS Rule 11.13, entitled ``Order
Execution,'' to modify the existing general description of Exchange
routing functionality, to describe available routing options in greater
detail, and to add certain new routing options.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.13, which describes its
order routing processes, to modify the existing general description of
Exchange routing functionality, to describe available routing options
in greater detail, and to add certain new routing options.
    In addition to the changes described below related to specific
routing options, the Exchange proposes various modifications to its
general routing standards, which modifications, the Exchange believes,
will help to clarify the rule. For instance, the Exchange proposes
consolidating the portions of the Rule related to routing of market
orders with those portions related to routing of limit orders. Although
market orders and limit orders might operate differently under
different circumstances, the Exchange does not believe there is a
meaningful reason to maintain separate rules related to such routing
options any longer. The Exchange made a similar consolidation when
adopting its rule for routing of options orders from BATS Options.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See BATS Rule 21.9, which contains information regarding the
routing functionality offered by the Exchange for equity options but
does not differentiate between market orders and limit orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, subject to User instructions, the Exchange currently allows
orders that have been routed and then posted to the Exchange's order
book to be re-routed if the order is subsequently locked or crossed by
another accessible Trading Center (``RECYCLE Option''). The Exchange
proposes to add a reference to the ``RECYCLE Option'' in its Rule
following the text describing this option, consistent with the general
goal of the proposed changes to align the routing options offered by
the Exchange with the rule text by providing additional specificity.
The Exchange also wishes to make clear that, unless otherwise
specified, the RECYCLE Option may be combined with any of the System
routing options specified in Rule 11.13.
    The Exchange is also amending Rule 11.13 to include a definition of
``System routing table,'' defined as the proprietary process for
determining the specific trading venues to which the Exchange System
routes orders and the order in which it routes them. The definition
reflects the fact that the Exchange, like other trading venues,
maintains different routing tables for different routing options and
modifies them on a regular basis to reflect assessments about the
destination markets. Such assessments consider factors such as a
destination's latency, fill rates, reliability, and cost. Accordingly,
the definition specifies that the Exchange reserves the right to
maintain a different routing table for different routing options and to
modify routing tables at any time without notice.
    Currently, routing options available through BATS are all
variations of a routing option referred to by the Exchange as ``CYCLE''
routing. Although the rule language for Exchange routing options
describes the available variations of options in general terms,

the Exchange believes that understanding of these options would be
enhanced by describing the different versions as separately named
routing options.
    Below is a description of the various routing options proposed
pursuant to new paragraph (a)(3) of Rule 11.13.
     CYCLE. CYCLE is a routing option currently offered by the
Exchange under which an order checks the System for available shares
and then is sent sequentially to destinations on the System routing
table for the full remaining size of such order.
     Parallel D. The Exchange is introducing the new Parallel D
routing option, under which an order checks the System for available
shares and then is sent to destinations on the System routing table.
The System may route to multiple destinations at a single price level
simultaneously through Parallel D routing.
     Parallel 2D. The Exchange is introducing the new Parallel
2D routing option, under which an order checks the System for available
shares and then is sent to destinations on the System routing table.
The System may route to multiple destinations and at multiple price
levels simultaneously through Parallel 2D routing.
     Parallel T. The Exchange is introducing the new Parallel T
routing option, under which orders route only to Protected Quotations
and only for displayed size. The System may route to multiple
destinations and at multiple price levels simultaneously through
Parallel T routing.
     DART. DART is a routing option currently offered by the
Exchange in which the entering firm instructs the System to first route
to alternative trading systems included in the System routing table.
DART can be combined with and function consistent with either the
CYCLE, Parallel D or Parallel 2D routing options.
     ``Destination Specific Orders,'' ``Modified Destination
Specific Orders'' and ``Directed ISO'' orders are routed orders
described in Rule 11.9.
2. Statutory Basis
    The rule change proposed in this submission is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the
proposed change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\
because 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 mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system.
The proposed change to provide additional clarity and specificity to
the Exchange's Rules regarding routing strategies further enhances
transparency with respect to Exchange routing offerings. Furthermore,
the proposal to introduce the new routing options will provide market
participants with greater flexibility in routing orders consistent with
Regulation NMS without developing complicated order routing strategies
on their own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 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 imposes
any burden on competition.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30
days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\10\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \11\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Exchange expects to
have technological changes for one or more of the new routing
strategies in place to support the proposed rule change on or about
July 6, 2010, and believes that benefits to Exchange Users expected
from the proposed rule change should not be delayed.\12\ In addition,
the Exchange notes that another national securities exchange currently
offers similar routing functionalities.\13\ The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest and hereby designates
the proposal operative upon filing.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to
the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing
of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by
the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ See SR-BATS-2010-017, Item7.
    \13\ See SR-BATS-2010-017, Item7 and 8. See also The NASDAQ
Stock Market LLC Rule 4758.
    \14\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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 No. SR-BATS-2010-017 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BATS-2010-017. 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,\15\ all subsequent amendments, all written statements with
respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 am and 3 pm.
Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying
at the principal office of BATS. 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. SR-BATS-2010-017 and should be submitted on or before July 29,
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-16535 Filed 7-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 56003]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23075]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements; Agency
Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the nature of the information collection and the expected
burden. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period was
published on April 15, 2011 (76 FR 21422-21423).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 11, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Cicchino, PhD, Contracting
Officer's Technical Representative, Office of Behavioral Safety
Research (NTI-131), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., W46-491, Washington, DC 20590. Dr.
Cicchino's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and her e-mail address is
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Evaluation of Impaired Riding Interventions.
    Type of Request: New information collection request.
    Abstract: The heavy toll that impaired driving exacts on the Nation
in fatalities, injuries, and economic costs is well documented.
Impaired motorcycle riding has also been an increasing concern on our
Nation's roads. Motorcycle fatalities in the US decreased in 2009 for
the first time after steadily increasing for 11 years; however, even
with this decline, the number of motorcycle fatalities in 2009 was
nearly double that from a decade earlier. Alcohol impairment is a
factor that contributes to a substantial proportion of fatal motorcycle
crashes. In 2009, 30% of motorcycle riders fatally injured in crashes
had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at or above .08 g/dL, which is
per se evidence of impaired riding in all States. Forty-two percent of
riders who died in single-vehicle crashes in 2009, and 63% of riders
who died in single-vehicle crashes on weekend nights, had a BAC of .08
g/dL or higher.
    In 2012, NHTSA anticipates sponsoring demonstration projects in
multiple locations to conduct interventions with the purpose of
reducing impaired motorcycle riding. NHTSA plans to evaluate these
interventions to determine their effectiveness. A key component of this
evaluation effort will use brief interviews to assess motorcycle
riders' knowledge of the intervention, self-reported drinking and
riding behavior, and belief that alcohol-impaired driving laws are
enforced for all motorists, including motorcycle riders in the areas in
which the interventions will occur.
    In-person interviews will be conducted with motorcycle riders in up
to 4 program locations, and in up to 3 comparison locations not
carrying out an intervention. Motorcycle riders will be interviewed at
sites within the program and comparison locations where riders
congregate. Interview length will average 5 minutes and will collect
information on attitudes, awareness, knowledge, and behavior related to
the intervention.
    The interviews will follow a pre-post design where they are
administered prior to the implementation of the intervention and after
its conclusion. For interventions where a pre-post design would not be
possible (i.e., interventions that are conducted in conjunction with an
infrequently-occurring event), the interviews will follow a test-
comparison design where they are administered during the intervention
in the program location, and in a comparison location that did not
experience an intervention. The proposed interviews will be anonymous.
Participation by respondents will be voluntary.
    Affected Public: NHTSA plans to recruit up to 500 riders per
interview administration. Up to 2 waves of program activity are planned
in each program location, and thus interviews will be administered a
maximum of 4 times (before and after each wave of program activity) in
each of the 7 study locations (4 program locations and 3 comparison
locations). Thus, a total maximum of 14,000 motorcycle riders will be
interviewed.
    Estimated Total Burden: Estimated time for each interview is 5
minutes. Hence, the total estimated burden is 1,166.67 hours.
Respondents would not incur any recordkeeping burden or recordkeeping
cost from the information collection.
    Comments are invited on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection;
    (iii) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (iv) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
    A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30
days of publication.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A)

Jeff Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2011-23075 Filed 9-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P